Last week at the ANT+ Symposium, Garmin opened up the curtains on their planned entrance into the running power market, which they’ll soon make available on many running and multisport devices they make. This app will require only a barometer-equipped watch that supports the latest Connect IQ version, as well a Running Dynamics capable HR strap or pod, both of which have been sold and bundled for years.
Now what’s interesting here is how exactly Garmin is planning on rolling this out. This isn’t a new native feature to the watches. Nor is it something that requires a new watch at all. In fact, it’ll work on some watches a number of years old.
Instead, Garmin is forcing themselves to develop the running power functionality via Connect IQ – in the same way that Stryd has been forced to utilize that same framework for their running power app and functionality. This has both pros and cons though, as I’ll dive into below. But it does effectively put both options on a level playing field from the standpoint of competitiveness.
If you want a quick overview of things, here’s a video I put together of my first run with it up in Banff, Canada and then a secondary run in Paris yesterday:
With that, let’s dive into all the details. But note – this isn’t available yet. It’ll be released around November 22nd, which is the date that the next version of Connect IQ (2.4) is released to the public.
What you need:
First, you’ll need to wait till November 22nd, due to the dependency on the next version of Garmin Connect IQ, which is the development platform update that was announced last week at the ANT+ Symposium.
That said, the requirements are pretty straightforward:
A) Connect IQ capable watch with a barometer that supports version Connect IQ 2.4: See the full chart down below.
B) Garmin HRM-TRI, HRM-RUN, or RD-POD: Any version, even ones three years old now.
Why these two and a half requirements? Well, it’s a two-parter. Let me explain:
A) Barometric altimeter requirement: This is required to know when you’re going uphill and downhill, which is in turn used in the calculations of power. Stryd is much the same, except they just have a barometric altimeter inside their little pod (and older chest strap version).
B) Running Dynamics requirement: The requirement to have an HRM-TRI, HRM-RUN, or RD-POD is based on the need to get a number of metrics, but most notably Vertical Oscillation and Ground Contact Time, which are only available in those accessories. The good news is those accessories have been around for about four years, and even the oldest straps will work. Note that Stryd also uses the same core Vertical Oscillation and related metrics.
C) Why Connect IQ 2.4? Ahh, this is an interesting one. See, Connect IQ version 2.4 actually includes new native connectivity to the Running Dynamics (HR-RD) ANT+ profile from any Connect IQ app. This means that any app can use this profile. It also means that anyone else could actually develop a running power app if they wanted to, using the same Garmin devices. The side effect to this requirement is that more inexpensive barometric altimeter devices (notably the Vivoactive HR) will get the CIQ update – despite not otherwise supporting Running Dynamics natively. As such, they get running power. Note: The Garmin Fenix 5 and FR935 will receive Connect IQ 2.4 likely a few days later than other devices do. Just an FYI.
Want a list of Connect IQ 2 compatible devices? Here:
(I’ve crossed out the FR735XT, because it doesn’t have a barometer in it, so while it’s 2.4 capable, it’s missing the required barometric altimeter for running power.)
You’ll note devices like the Garmin Fenix 3/3HR aren’t on the list, nor the FR630 or FR920XT. These devices stopped receiving the newer Connect IQ version almost a year ago. That caused a ruckus at the time, since some of them were still effectively current devices (it was pre-Fenix 5 then). A fair bit of that can, in turn, be attributed to those devices really being the first generation of devices Garmin launched Connect IQ, and thus some of the longer planning on what it takes to operate a software development ecosystem hadn’t fully materialized yet. Here’s what the whole chart looks like.
Next thing is you’ll need the RunPow app. Now, again, it’s not available yet. And that name probably isn’t final (but should be). But it reminds me of Caf-Pow, which Abby of NCIS is a regular consumer of. Obviously, I’m an NCIS fan.
In any event, the RunPow app is technically a Garmin Connect IQ data field. That data field, in turn, connects to the Running Dynamics accessory of your choice (HRM-TRI/HRM-RUN/RD-POD). Here’s that app in all its simplicity on a Garmin FR935, as a data field atop another data field I’ve set for pace:
The app merely has one data field, which at present just shows your current power. Yup, that’s it.
Below you can see me running along at 540w and a 7:20/mile pace on flat ground.
And this is where things get kinda interesting. Like Stryd, there isn’t a way to implement things like 3-second power, 5-second power, or 10-second power (natively on the watch, only via configuration in the app for Stryd). Nor is there a way to implement useful features like lap power. It’s just one power field.
Certainly, Garmin could create multiple Connect IQ data fields, but many watches are limited to only two CIQ data fields being utilized at once. Heck, they even limit you to not being able to re-use that same field on other pages.
And it’s at this juncture that Garmin is feeling some of the pain of their own doing. Which isn’t to say Connect IQ is bad, it’s just that sometimes it takes eating your own dog food for an actual “product” to force you to realize the shortcomings and how it might make a product useful or not. Or at least it makes you feel the pain. These are all shortcomings that app developers and consumers have been complaining about for quite some time.
Garmin says there’s been about 15 running power related features related to their app they’ve had to forgo, due to the lack of underlying support for those things in Garmin Connect IQ. Of course, they could have just natively built the whole thing into the product – but this is a good exercise for them.
At the Symposium, they outlined some features they can’t implement, largely due to Connect IQ:
To translate this from tech speak to English, here’s what these mean (they all apply to Stryd as well):
Two CIQ limit: Means you can’t put RunPow (running power) on multiple pages like you might put the same HR or pace on multiple pages. One page only.
Doesn’t show up in history: You won’t see any running power stats at the end of a run, or in the history section of your workout.
Banners are limited: Simply put, no overlay banners for running power like you might see for things like lap averages.
Configuration within GCM: This means any configuration of the data field has to happen with Garmin Connect Mobile, you can’t tweak it on the watch itself.
CIQ fields can’t be used as intensity target: I think this is self-explanatory, but essentially you can’t set power targets with this like you could set pace or HR targets.
CIQ data doesn’t appear in reports: Since it’s not a normal field like pace or heart rate, you won’t get it in some of the fancy reports of Garmin Connect.
In any event – back to the run. As you run, this power number will fluctuate just like Stryd’s does. Run harder, and it’ll go up, go up-hills and it’ll go up assuming you’re putting out more power.
(Above: Differences between Garmin power (top), and Stryd power (bottom).)
There are some notable differences here. In the case of Stryd, they appear to be doing a bit more smoothing in the data than Garmin, but not noticeably so when running (only when looking at the data after). Of bigger concern is that both numbers are so different. Garmin’s sits about 100-150w higher than Stryd’s does, for me, across a wide range of terrain and conditions.
All of which also calls into question the validity of any running power meter number today. Simply put: There is no standard to compare to. Yes, you can get force plate treadmills indoors – something Stryd has done and shown before in various circumstances. But you can’t put those outdoors on a gravel hill into a headwind. So nobody really knows what the power looks like there, or if the models are correct. Not Garmin, not Stryd.
Further, even ‘direct force’ variants like Arion (more soon) aren’t measuring shear force, which is force that’s not directly down onto the unit itself. So that’s yet another type of approximation. Potentially better, but it’s also hard to know for certain.
Post-run stats:
So let’s look at some data. Now I should first point out that these stats are from screenshots taken on the Garmin beta servers (since the app is officially unpublished still). Since I don’t have access to those, the Garmin folks took a crapton of screenshots for me to compare. Inversely it also means the Stryd data doesn’t show up there. So I’ve gotta blend two screenshots together to make this work. Naturally, once published it’ll all be magical and on one page if you have two devices.
First though, ignoring comparative data – here’s what it’ll all look like on Garmin Connect within the charts section (it’s the very last line, you can click to zoom):
To put that in perspective, let’s overlay my running power with pace, atop elevation. This first run is from the mountain I ran up.
You can see above that there’s a relationship between pace and power, as you’d expect. However, there’s also a relationship to vertical oscillation and ground contact time as well. These are all metrics that Stryd also leverages, and reports as well within the dashboard.
Here’s the exact same chart from Stryd (sorry, there isn’t a way to overlay them since they’re on different platforms right now).
You can see the two units roughly go up and down at the same time, but the intensity varies between them.
Note that you have the ability to see ‘Average Running Power’ for each of the laps/splits within my file (set at 1-mile intervals). That’s shown on the right side:
And then down below in the run summary stats, you’ll see on the left side is a ‘Connect IQ’ section with the ‘RunPow’ app listed. Here it shows the version, but also shows the Average Running Power for the run (270w).
I then did a run yesterday back in Paris on much flatter ground (and a bit more consistent in pace). Here’s a look at that:
My vertical oscillation was fairly high here, much higher than up on the mountain. Also, my power was higher here, but I was also not doing as much stop and go as on the mountain, so that skews things a bit. Here’s just the power chart from Garmin;
And here’s the same thing on the Stryd front:
You generally speaking see much less variability with the Stryd side than Garmin (more smoothing if you will). Now, deciding which one is most accurate? Well…who knows.
If you want to look at all the screenshots sent over, here’s two galleries. The first on the mountain:
You can look at my full Garmin Connect activity with the Stryd data here for the mountain.
And here’s the second set for 5K run in Paris:
As well as here for the Garmin Connect link with the Stryd data.
Ultimately there’s no easy way to know which one is most accurate. Both companies claim they’re backed by data and science. While Stryd has shown some data from indoor treadmills and how it matches, neither company can demonstrate anything tangible outdoors because no such technology exists to base any sort of accuracy statement on outdoors.
Updated section – Oct 5th, 2017:
Just as an update to things, and mostly at the request of various readers in the comments below, Garmin has provided a slide of the various papers they’ve used as the basis for their work/algorithms. Here’s that slide:
In addition, Garmin also shot over an updated/reworked slide of the limitations of CIQ slide I posted up above earlier from their presentation (still listed). That slide up above actually was never presented at the Symposium. It was in draft copies of the presentation, but not shown. A few days following the summit I received a copy of the entire slide-deck to pluck out some of the Running Power slides, but it turns out I was sent the draft, and not the final.
The Garmin team didn’t ask for that slide to be pulled, but instead just wanted to provide a bit more context of the pros and cons of their thinking to me specifically. I in turn asked if I could publish it here, and they were OK with that. Remember, this slide is specifically talking to the pros and cons versus building out power in the watch natively versus doing it in a CIQ app.
![clip_image002[6]](https://media.dcrainmaker.com/images/2017/10/clip_image0026.jpg "clip_image002[6]")
Finally, Garmin notes that there will be some configuration options via the Connect Mobile app, including aspects related to power zone fields. I didn’t have the opportunity to test/try those, but will report back on them once things are released in November
Thoughts on running power:
When Garmin announced running power at the ANT+ Symposium last week, they seemed to take pains in the presentation to talk about how they got there and where they see themselves in the market. In many ways, it appears that the introduction of running power is for them as much of a forced experiment in how to improve Connect IQ as a platform, as it is about introducing new functionality to their wearables lineup.
To be super clear here, with CIQ 2.4 coming out, any company can write the exact same app as Garmin (perhaps even better than Garmin). They can leverage the exact same Running Dynamics data – heck, even from non-Garmin sources. Some might see this as propriety Garmin stuff, but ultimately that’s actually the exact inverse of what’s going on here. In fact, I’d argue Garmin should have done it internally in a firmware update, because it’d have probably been a heck of a lot better functionality wise (in the short term). But in the long term this will force Garmin to make the CIQ platform better for others. And that’s better for everyone, most notably consumers.
Which ultimately brings us back to Stryd (and others). Like it or not, Garmin just made itself a competitor to Stryd. For pure running power and RD metrics, that means Stryd costs roughly three times as much as Garmin for the exact same data (RD-POD is $69, versus Stryd at $199). Stryd would (rightfully) argue they have a wider online platform in running analytics. And that’s definitely true. Whether or not it matters to the majority of the population that may just want a simple running power number is a much harder question to answer.
I’m also not going to make a judgment about which is more accurate. Anyone who does is kidding themselves. There’s simply no way with today’s technology to know outside which is more accurate. You can judge consistency, you can judge how variables and conditions impact each unit, but you can’t reliably judge accuracy today outside.
The other small tidbit to come out of this is that it sounds like an ANT+ Running Power TWG (Technical Working Group) is finally being formed. That’s the first step to getting an official Running Power profile in process so that the data can be better supported. Of course, this is really up to the member companies to push though. That means the onus is on Stryd, RunScribe, and even Garmin to get that solidified. Any of these companies by themselves can push and make that happen very quickly…if they want it.
But the biggest takeaway today? Garmin’s thrown its weight behind running power. There’s still plenty of work technologically and from a training perspective to be sorted out in the running power world (heck, there is already a full book on it!). But with Garmin set to make it a baseline in almost all of their running products, it’ll certainly draw attention to it. That attention may in turn help to sift through some of the technology and scientific aspects needed.
With that – thanks for reading!
FOUND THIS POST USEFUL? SUPPORT THE SITE!
Hopefully, you found this post useful. The website is really a labor of love, so please consider becoming a DC RAINMAKER Supporter. This gets you an ad-free experience, and access to our (mostly) bi-monthly behind-the-scenes video series of “Shed Talkin’”.
Support DCRainMaker - Shop on Amazon
Otherwise, perhaps consider using the below link if shopping on Amazon. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. It doesn’t cost you anything extra, but your purchases help support this website a lot. It could simply be buying toilet paper, or this pizza oven we use and love.
Interesting. Also nice that once the updates are available it’s almost like a freebie for people who have the RD-Pod/HRM-RUN and compatible watches.
Yup, in a nutshell.
I assume the leg up that Stryd has is that it can also report pace as well? Is it still true the run pod can’t do pace? (love the Stryd on the treadmill, lets me track runs through my normal mechanisms — collecting directly on the phone with iSmoothRun).
I’m not a strong enough runner that I think Running Power would ever be useful for me, but I liked what you highlighted about this being a good lesson for Garmin in making CIQ better for all developers (including themselves). It can only result in better apps for Garmins, which in turn gives Garmin more power in the fitness watch marketplace. Slightly off subject, but did you say that at some point you were going to write a post about footpods? (either the stand alone, or the RD-Pod?) Next year I’m targeting a race that goes through a tunnel for 1 mile, so I’m looking into getting a footpod, Since your post mentioned the RD-Pod, it reminded me.
You mean this for the footpod? link to dcrainmaker.com
Or this for the rd-pod? link to dcrainmaker.com
I was referring more to this post: link to dcrainmaker.com 2) Tunnel Testing. Specifically: “While I will get to various results down the road for the numerous devices I was testing,” This is the part I’m interested in, plus the overall test, not just the blurb he gave, since we know that when he writes something specific, he covers a lot of information – and that’s what I’m interested in learning.
Technically shouldn’t the following read “unlike” versus “like”: Like Stryd, there isn’t a way to implement things like 3-second power, 5-second power, or 10-second power.
Both of them can’t do those types of rolling averages
I stand corrected:
link to apps.garmin.com
February 2017:
You have the ability to show:
1. Real time power
2. 3 second power
3. 10 second power
4. 30 second power
5. Lap power
6. Total average power
How can I access this new feature?
1. Open Garmin Express
2. Click Manage Apps
3. Select Stryd Power
4. Select an option to average your power
True, but I’m specifically referring to the ability for a user to self-select the smoothing/average option for the data field like any other data field on the watch.
I see that as a function of the watch – not the power mater. The Stryd Summit foot pod does a 5-second moving average (the Pioneer used to do 10s) to get a just-useable but very reactive reading. And then on my watch Suunto Spartan I can choose to average that for another 3, 10 or 30 seconds.
Current devices will get the functionality via CIQ, but what about future devices? Will they get the running power baked in natively? Also, will the RD-pod work with the Stryd Data Field and the Stryd pod work with the Garmin Data Field? Or will that only be the case if Stryd updates their side to use the new RD ANT+ standard?
To extend Justins question. Since power from Stryd or from RD-Pod is just an IQ field, can you record both at the same time?
At this point there’s no ANT+ standard for running power (search below for my thoughts, use the word ‘TWG’).
Any future devices would of course get CIQ 2.40 though.
Interesting development.
I do believe one other key limitation is the inability of one data field to reuse the data from another data field. The use case would be that I use one of the many multi-field data fields being able to display power from either the Stryd or Garmin power field. Right now I’m forced to switch between the multi-field data display over to another screen for power.
But as you mention, nothing would prevent the multi-field developer from implementing thier own power, but I just don’t see that happening.
Miro
Very disappointing garmin has abandoned the 920XT. it is only 1 generation old and their flagship triathlon watch till recently.
True, but i suspect the 920 simply lacked the CPU and memory to keep up with the newer version of IQ.
But on the positive, its a great excuse to uprade to a new toy, I mean tool.
Memory has a lot to do with it, see the table here. The overhead for data fields was getting pretty bad in the later versions of CIQ 1.x. Various benchmark apps on the Garmin app store show at least double the speed on newer watches.
I really hope that ant+ or garmin themselves get properly hold of this. Their approach here feels like the results of a panic brainstorm session where a few engineers have lashed up a capability out of whatever was available.
I never use instant pace, preferring lap pace. Glancing down and seeing a number, relevant only for that instant, has always felt a bit pointless to me. I pace my efforts over a mile or a track lap.
However, saying that, I *do* use instant heart rate as a guide to effort, mainly to slow me down on long runs.
Maybe I’ll use power in a combination of these two approaches. But to enable me to do that, it needs to be built properly into my 935 and not added as a reactionary bodge. I need instant/lap/overall etc numbers.
Runscribe Plus ships this week and they are also using connect iq. This could get messy! Worth only two fields available, I envisage lots of single fields that actually contain multi fields being used.
the article’s not showing on the “blog” page as an entry – got here through YT.
But a bit sad – just bought the 735XT. (was a VERY good price at 252USD in Denmark though)
annnnd which watch do I have? 735XT.
Story of my life, lol. How about a giveaway Ray, I think we’re due? :)
Wow, I was almost about to buy a stryd, but I now think this looks more interesting, even though my Fenix 3 will need upgrading. Just the excuse I need to get a 935.
Silly question but could I use my edge 520 this in the interim? Perhaps attached to my wrist using an old 910xt quick release. Not sure if it would work with the running dynamics stuff.
Same question I had… Lol
It’d require Garmin release the app to the Edge devices, which realistically they probably wouldn’t do – merely for QA/testing overhead reasons.
Wearing an Edge 520 on your wrist would be the funniest watch ever :-)
It’s probably still smaller then the initial forerunner!
I’m a Stryd user and I’ve sort of seen this coming for awhile now. Garmin has been notoriously difficult in cooperating with the Stryd pod, but this is at least a good sign that will soon improve.
Tough sell for Stryd with their $199 footpod when you can get the same functionality from the $69 Garmin footpod. Of course, you’d need a Garmin watch with a barometric altimeter, which as you noted many of them don’t.
Ray – Slight correction on your post, you CAN have 3sec, 10sec, lap, etc power from Stryd, they added that a few months ago.
The caveat being, regardless of how many CIQ fields you’re already showing, you can only pick one metric from Stryd (I use 3sec wattage).
Yeah, I was talking natively within the watch itself. But I’ve clarified in the post.
And that’s something Garmin should do prior to release – at least let the user select *which* version of the CIQ field he wants, if he can only display one. I would imagine that a 3 or 10 sec would be more useful than an instantaneous number in most cases, and lap for short interval work.
The “Swirling F U” to users of even one-generation old products like the Fenix 3HR. I don’t blame them, but I’m not happy about it. This kind of behaviour will only encourage buyers to essentially only buy brand new products in order to get the most life out of them before new functionality in new devices makes still-excellent devices out dated. Especially seeing the Edge 520 – a product that is older than the Fenix 3HR – on the list really grinds my gears.
That’s the flip side of opening up a part of the software platform to 3rd-party apps. You can’t predict initially that you will have an app store that will have some success, and how much business it will drive; once you release it, you have people who want more and more (and the article above talks at lenght about CIQ 2 limitations – let alone CIQ1), but the hardware can’t support it… Try running today’s IOS apps on the original iPhone… So you have to establish ‘cut points’ where you drop the backwards compatibility. IOS 11 runs on iPhone 5s, but not on iPhone 5, for example.
I hate Garmin. When are they going to start respecting the customers that keep them in business? It’s always a losing proposition; buy new released products and endure endless software glitches, or buy a mature product and find it is no longer supported. Utterly useless!
Ray – Just noticed in your Garmin Connect graphs…How are you getting that “Ground Contact Balance %” metric? Is that something the Running Dynamics chest strap captures?
If so, how does it know left from right?
It does come from any of the running dynamics straps and I believe the RD Pod as well.
It comes from the RD-Pod. Details here: link to dcrainmaker.com
Thanks Ray! Awesome write up as usual. Do I understand this correctly that there still isn’t a way to complete interval targets similar to cycling with any of the Garmin family of watches? Do you envision any IQ apps being released where you could build a workout which displays target “running watts”?
Correct. Nothing planned at the moment I’m aware of.
While we can’t say that Stryd is absolutely accurate it’s pretty good. If Garmin is 100w+ higher that Stryd then I’m going to guess Garmin is wrong. Especially given that Stryd has demonstrated that their treadmill power ratings at least are accurate. We can calculate estimated power after a run by simply knowing the athlete’s weight, distance, and time (I’d assume this is similar to what Strava does for cyclists). I know you don’t have the files yet to work with but I’ll bet once you do we’ll see that Garmin’s number just doesn’t fit the physiology.
All that being said, has Garmin commented on your accuracy? Being that far apart I would wonder if your pod was miscalibrated or weight was incorrect.
Garmin has seen it, and doesn’t believe it’s incorrect. They’ve also seen the Stryd data concurrently. In a nutshell, both companies believe their algorithms are correct per various studies.
Garmin did note that the Vertical Oscillation figures on my Paris run seemed slightly abnormally high, which would in turn impact the power numbers if incorrect. I may for fun try using an HRM-TRI/RUN strap and see if that differs from RD-POD, just for the heck of it.
I had fairly different results between my mk1 and mk2 Stryds: I was told the footpod is more accurate because there’s more instability introduced with a chest strap (paraphrasing wildly here) so I’m guessing you should compare the HRM-Run vs the Garmin footpod vs the Stryd and see if that makes it even more confusing…
Yeah, I saw differences as well between Gen1 and Gen2. Someday when I’m sufficiently bored I’ll probably do a test run with all of them. At the moment though I’m working to get through the Vivoactive 3 and Apple Watch reviews.
I have a gen2 Stryd and I know anecdotally that people were seeing in the neighborhood of a 5% difference from gen1. This looks to be closer to a 50% difference. That go from “This isn’t an exact science” to “Are we even measuring the same thing?” Curious if this difference is consistent across more runs/devices and if there’s anything to the large VO.
My gut feeling is that I believe more in the correctness of the Stryd power number than the Garmin one. This is just based on personal experience with bike power meters and rowing ergometers. Running at Ray’s pace (even briefly. which is about all I can do) doesn’t feel anywhere near 450W of perceived exertion. 450W on the bike feels much more difficult to me and even 250W on the rowing machine feels much more difficult. So, I guess I’d like to see some lab data or other data from Garmin justifying the value. Under similar conditions Stryd and Garmin ought to be at least close. Which they aren’t right now.
I agree with your gut feeling, but mostly because it’s new, and it’s Garmin, so there’s bound to be bugs, and Stryd has been doing this a while.
But should cycling power have the same perceived effort as running power? That I’m not so sure of. I’m not a runner, but since this posted I’ve been thinking about this again (I am a Ph.D in Physics, although nothing remotely related to exercise physiology). For example, a cyclist and a runner approach a stop sign where they’re going to have to stop. The cyclist stops pedaling, so his power output immediately drops to zero. But since bicycles are low friction devices he continues moving until he applies the brakes. The brakes do work and generate power, but no one would worry about measuring or crediting the cyclist with this power since in a sense he’s already been credited with it, so the power measured during the stop is zero. The runner, on the other hand, has to continue running. There’s still vertical oscillation (maybe even exaggerated), a force opposite to the direction of motion has to be applied by legs/feet, so the power meter should continue to measure a power output. (Correctly? I’ve no idea.)
Or consider downhill. The only reason to ride (slowly) a bicycle to the top of a mountain is to go back down it again. I’ve been passed on my mountain bike by runners going up steep climbs, but I can be sure that if I’m with or near them at the crest I’ll never seen them again on the descent. My power output will be zero or close to it for as long as the downhill lasts. But a runner can’t stop running and has to stay in control, so they’ll have to continuously bleed off the gravitational potential energy with their legs/feet (depending on the surface, I might have to on my MTB as well, but I’ll use my brakes). So there’ll still be measured power output in that case for a runner and not a cyclist.
Slightly relevant to this comment – A sports scientist told me that HR zones for running are 10-15BPM higher than for cycling. Therefore it would make sense that for a given power number, the perceived exertion would feel higher running than cycling.
@Paul S.:
The only reason to ride (slowly) a bicycle to the top of a mountain is to conquer the mountain.
FTFY
Ray, thanks for the review!
May I suggest a experiment to identify which may be more accurate?
My hypothesis is that heart rate under constant conditions is a decent surrogate for energy expenditure (integral of power). Therefore if you have a well known running track, you could do a constant heart rate run (something I’m pretty sure you have locked down), ideally over some varying inclines and see if power also remains constant on both units. If one of the units shows wild variations in power, even though you know you maintained a balanced effort, it would indicate some issues in the algorithm.
Alternatively, you could run up/down some constant inclines at a constant pace and see how well power correlates to the leveled-out heart rate (this might be harder to find the right testing ground).
Well, this is what I would do if I had both units at my disposal.
You … are … the man!
Looking forward to your reviews as I compare my new Apple Watch to my tried and true Vivoactive HR. (TL;DR, the Vivoactive is much better at fitness, but the Apple Watch is, well, …Just Fun ;)
Ha ha, was replying to Ray’s comment above, before all the intervening comments interceded.
Did you run the ~10min calibration on your old Stryd Pioneer? After I did that I found the Pioneer and Summit to be within 10w of each other. Of course then Stryd added better downhill power estimates to the Summit and the two separated.
To Paul Re: “The brakes do work and generate power, but no one would worry about measuring or crediting the cyclist with this power ”
As regards measuring you are wrong, see Isaac software from Velocomp (Newton/Ibike) at link to ibikesports.com
Search for ‘braking’
Yes, I know. I use a PowerPod and Isaac. You can see it in Isaac. But if they’re actually crediting it to me, they’re simply wrong, and I’ll have to stop using the PowerPod (or my new AeroPod).
Any tips for making the running pod more accurate? I’d much rather run with just the pod for non-races (since I have the optical HRM on my 935, but I’ve found that the GCT and Vertical oscillation reading are alllll over the place (compared to when I wear my HRM strap). I’ve tried wearing bottoms with a tighter waistband, which helps a little, but it is still significantly off what my HRM strap shows. Is it just not designed for someone with a little “junk I’m the trunk”?
You are supposed to wear the pod on your shoe.
I take it back – haven’t realized the Garmin pod is indeed worn on the shorts.
Garmin Running Dynamics Pod is NOT the same as a Garmin Foot Pod.
RD Pod – Short waistband
Foot Pod – Shoe
Is it correct to assume that the calculated power data will also be available in Garmin Connect to those devices that implement running dynamics but don’t support IQ Connect 2 (like the Fenix 3 and FR920XT)? If I understood correctly, they do gather the necessary data, just aren’t able to process it in real time, right?
No plans there that I’m aware of.
You would think this would be theoretically possible and it’d be amazing if Garmin did this, but I can’t see it happening for two reasons:
(1) It would double their workload, having to implement power calculation in both an ad-hoc (in the CIQ app) and post-hoc manner (on the server-side after upload to GC) and introduce possible conflicts for those devices that *are* calculating/recording it in real-time.
(2) It would remove the incentive people might now have to upgrade from older devices such as the fenix 3.
Not doing it creates an incentive to buy not-Garmin next time around.
Very interesting read, thanks. The 2 x CIQ data field limitation is really annoying, even on Fenix 5. There’s some nice ones that record into the FIT file but you have to choose only two. Can the hardware really not handle more? Is there any chance they will up the limit? Thanks.
Ray, have you got an early copy RunSribe Plus to start adding in to the comparison mix? (I ask as I’m tracking my RS Plus shipment dispatched yesterday…. can’t wait). It seems us consumers are going to suddenly be swamped with differing power sources and not sure which will be most useful. I agree accuracy is just guesswork, but winner must be the unit that best allows you to trace a constant power output to maintain a best effort over a given race distance or training target.
I don’t have a unit yet. Though, I did order one. Hmm, will have to check on tracking – odd.
I did put my pre-order in very shortly after it went live on the RS website, so maybe that’s why I’ve been lucky to be early in the dispatch queue. Tracking shows as having landed in UK, so fingers crossed it arrives in the next couple of days before heading off on a work trip.
Assuming its flat ground and no headwind there is an equation to calculate horizontal power. Obviously this wouldn’t help you assess their ability to measure power outside, but would work on an indoor track. Like testing a cycling power meter on a trainer..it’s the easiest there. Think we could give it a try and see which one is more accurate. One must be with the differences being like that.
Just a thought – Stryd is not compatible with Garmin flagship watch – and Garmin is now competition to Stryd…
I do get the feeling Garmin feels moderately bad about that. It’s pushing people away from buying a more expensive watch at the expense of a cheap accessory. It sounds like by time all the right people realized how big an issue it was, it was too late to change. And it sounds like changing what’s in-watch right now from a manufacturing standpoint is more difficult than they would have hoped.
Stryd is not compatible with the 935?
It’s fully compatible.
I gave up on using Garmin and STRYD – just to many limitations!
Sounds like Garmin is coming out with their own “halfway” solution.
I for sure haven’t regret switching to Polar V800 instead. Native powersupport for running is just way better than Connect IQ.
Having re read this article, why didn’t Garmin do this properly? I mean without being to set power targets for workouts etc it has the same limitations as the stryd app. At least stryd has Powerace which allows you to follow a set power.
I would have thought Garmin would have incorporated power natively such as measuring heart rate rather than using connect iq. This feels more like a hobbyists project than something developed by the watch’s manufacturer. Did they just put their name on someone else’s work? I’m guessing not since it uses a yet in released version of connect iq unless or do developers get beta versions of it.
One could argue they didn’t do it natively to force a 3rd party to bring the standard to market via ANT+ TWG. That’s better for consumers actually, in the long term. But more painful in the short term (as outlined in the post).
As for putting their name on others work, everyone is using various published papers on this. The calculations aren’t that difficult.
Developers should shortly get access to that CIQ version (I thought it was supposed to go live a few days ago, but maybe got held for some reason temporarily).
Ray, do you have links to those papers? I’m curious. (Of course, they’ll probably be behind journal paywalls, but I thought I’d ask.)
I’ll see if I can get what Garmin is specifically using, as they noted it a few times in their ANT+ presentation. I believe Stryd lists theirs somewhere on their site…
It would be interesting to compare a critical power test (one of the various versions) between Garmin and Stryd. While I agree you can’t really know which one is right, I suspect as long as you stay within a particular system then you’re probably going to be ok. I wonder if the discrepancy could be because Stryd is only measuring one leg?
The thing I’m most disappointed in is the inability to use as an intensity target. I’ve been a Stryd user since the Kickstarter and not having that is my biggest limitation to using power for training. Do you have any sense that Garmin might be addressing that particular shortcoming any time soon? Thanks.
Since consistency is what matters in this case (not which one is accurate between Garmin & Stryd), I heard Garmin will be using GPS for Speed as opposed to Sryd, and GPS might be affected by several factors (signal, weather, buildings, etc), I wonder how much consistency will Garmin have vs Stryd. Whether an existing Garmin user with a compatible technology cares or not, only time will tell. I suspect for sure serious data users, this would be a key factor to choose between both platform.
I read that Stryd is very accurate to calculate speed on treadmill. Is this related to what you just wrote? Would it be an incentive to go with Stryd (if you are doing some treadmill run)?
An obvious move; it was just a matter of time, and Stryd should have (hopefully) expected it.
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out and how the half million in venture funding that backed Stryd will react. It seems like there is a window that will quickly close…
Agree, everyone in the industry expected it. Though, not exactly this way (I would have expected it natively in a new product).
phew. glad it wasn’t just me thinking that
G’day Ray great read, WKO4 are working on running power data, to give meaningful charts on it recently, will a watch (mine at the moment a Fenix 2 with a HRM-Run strap) it gives the running dynamics on ConnectIQ already, will it transfer the new data to TrainingPeaks then onto WKO4? Thanks
WKO4 is doing some good work here.
I haven’t played with it recently, but my understanding is that it can enumerate any developer fields recorded, so this is just another one in that sense. I’ve gotta load it on my laptop again (switched laptops) to see how it handles here.
If only Garmin would open up for power in running profiles, a lot would be sweet…
Suspect that is pretty much the end of Stryd then!
So, that pretty much confirms that Fenix 3 is dead for them?
That was known over a year ago: link to developer.garmin.com
A revolution just began.
Interesting. Thing I found with the Stryd power numbers that they were at least similar to my bike power numbers so made some “sense”. So my bike FTP is around 300W and if I ran at 300W (according to the Stryd) then I was putting in a fair bit of effort and I got to about 330W average in a flat out 10K race. It looks with the current Garmin algorithm I might be past 400W and maybe up to 500W. Do 500W on a bike and I am basically doing a short sprint. If both think they are measuring the same thing can’t both be right but maybe they aren’t the same thing? For instance, I recall Stryd talks about breaking down running power into not only an overall power that is the main one you see but into a component that is actually used to drive you forward and a component that is “wasted” in lateral and vertical directions (form power I think).
I wondered about that, it’s fair to say that on average you use more energy per hour running than cycling, so since energy = power X time, it would follow that the average power numbers would be higher.
How much of that energy is useful who knows since running is far less efficient than running. I suspect you are right in that the stryd is measuring more useful power (as in cycling where it is the energy transferred per second to the cranks) rather than the total power expended.
Power already figures time… Power = work/time. But you don’t need to calculate power to figure calories burned in running, rather how much oxygen is being used. We only use power to equal calories in cycling because the ratio is the same and power is easier to determine than oxygen expenditure is for cycling.
Comparing bike power and run power is apples vs grapes.
Primer on running power : link to georgeron.com
-RG
Ray,
Two things:
1). This post doesn’t show up for me on your site. I only found this because it showed up in my RSS feed
2). Will you be posting a video & slides from your Ant+ keynote this year, like you’ve done in the past?
1) Seems to be a recurring issue in last week or so. Devs been working on it. Sorry!
2) Yup! As soon as I get a copy of the video from the ANT+ crew.
If it helps on #1: This post kept appearing / disappearing for me last night, and the comments as well. On the comments: I would look at this post – zero comments; hit refresh – 42 comments; hit refresh 1 comment.
Really looking forward to your Ant+ keynote.
Yeah, it’s all a caching engine thing. Much of the site is cached, which is usually purged on a per-page basis as soon as a comment posts. But there’s been issues lately where the caching engine thread hangs, and basically nothing refreshes – thus resulting in what you and others are seeing.
In general, logged in users bypass the cache (not due to preferential treatment or anything, just the way the thingy works), so I don’t tend to catch it as quickly. It’s also why some see it and others don’t.
Interesting indeed.
Annnnd, what watch do I have? The only one not supported! Time for another giveaway, Ray!
I thought this was a bit disappointing. (Garmin not you ;-) )
I had hoped that whenever this was announced by Garmin all the current CIQ limitations would be blown away by a proper running power profile (that allows alerts, etc). that’s one thing that makes adoption of running power harder at present.
PS STRYD can be configured to average the power displayed through Garmin Express, from memory in the data field config view
Yeah, for averaging, I was referring to the ability to select native data fields for averaging.
Yay. Looking forward to this. Fenix 5 and FR935 getting firmware later? Is this something garmin told you? I guess they use the same base firmware. Suprised the arn’t first as the flagship.
It was noted specifically on the slides that way.
Garmin sure knows how to treat their buyers of their most premium expensive products.
My Fenix 5S Sapphire looks awesome and cost me a fortune but it’s been buggy, GPS performance is worse than my old 235, it doesn’t work *at all* with my Stages PM or Stryd footpod and new features that come to products like the Vivoactive 3 or Vivosmart come to our watches months later.
It’s been frustrating, somehow I though Fenix users would get something better. I’m very excited by running power but I feel like this is only a partial solution before it gets backed into the firmware of some future watch we will have to upgraded to, maybe even if just to get the same ANT+ performance that products 1/4th the cost from Garmin have had for years.
#grumpymodeoff
This isn’t showing up on the home page for me. I only found it through your post on Facebook.
Shows up now.
Nice to see ! I hope that more running power meters are to come. But more over, I wish we’d see apps/software to exploit and analyze all this data.
Do you ever plan to review the Stryd Power meter ?
So power here is saved as a custom developer field in the FIT file and not to the power field as set in the FIT standard? Makes it easy to have stryd and this at the same time to test. Also means apps that want to use this power data have to have code that recognizes Garmin’s custom data field
Correct, same as Stryd in using developer fields. Stryd also transmits power to faking the cycling profile. But that requires you be in cycling mode on a Garmin, which sucks for other reasons (none of which are Stryds fault).
Thanks for the note DCR, I’ll be looking forward to test the running dynamics.
About the ANT+ symposium. Did they cover other topics like standards for Cycling Dynamics data over Bluetooth?
I’ve got another post coming up on more details, just kinda alternating Interbike leftovers with new stuff. You won’t see Cycling Dynamics over BLE coming from the ANT+ folks (that’d be from the BLE folks). But you will definitely see some news on Cycling Dynamics. Definitely good news.
Ray – I am not seeing this post on your site directly on my laptop. I picked it when via YouTube.
I have Google Chrome/MS Edge.
I am however seeing it on my phone via its Chrome browser.
I can’t believe that I would not be able to use my fenix3HR for this. Such is life I guess
Will there be a video of your ANT+ keynote online somewhere this time?
Yup, just working to get the video files (you can check out the really horrible quality livestream on my Facebook page if you want to endure some pain).
Hi,
Nice to see Garmin begin to play around with this!
Do you think that native integration of power on the garmin watches is something that will be implemented in the (near) future, and if it comes would you expect it to be added to current watches or only future updates?
A fully integrated running power would be something that could make it worth it to postpone a watch upgrade.
PS: last word in the penultimate line is straw, should this have been draw??
I would expect to see running power become native if an ANT+ device profile is created. Check out some of my comments down below on that (search for ‘TWG’).
I’m stil on the 630, but preorded the new RunScribe plus. So wil be in the running power business soon. Is there a RunScribe plus review coming in the pipeline?
Unfortunately I don’t have a RunScribe Plus unit yet. But definitely looking forward to it!
To your knowledge, do the RD Pod and HRM-RUN strap have the same kinds of accelerometers as Stryd? I was under the impression that the key for Stryd was just much more accurate hardware (which is why a lot of people apparently use Stryd just to get instant pace).
Also, I recall that you said the Fenix 5 had trouble with Stryd. Has it worked well with the RD Pod? Because while disappointed Stryd owners are probably a fairly small group for Garmin to deal with, I could imagine it being a much bigger problem for them if they roll out a feature like this in-house and it doesn’t work with their flagship product.
I haven’t really heard of any RD-Pod issues with the Fenix 5 (widespread anyway to my knowledge). Part of it is really just a distance thing there. The RD-Pod is half the distance from the watch as Stryd.
You probably refer to well known ANT+ problems – actually no problems with my Adidas micoach Ant+ footpod and Fenix 5
well stryd (and my stages pm) never worked *at all* (less than 10% of data properly recorded) with my Fenix 5S sapphire. i’ve used the garmin hrm-tri and garmin footpod with no issue.
i *just* purchased the garmin rd-pod the moment i saw this post a few days ago (because i often run without the hrm-tri and until now didn’t see the value in the rd stats but i do want power on all my runs) and have now done 2 runs with my fenix 5S… both runs look great from connection standpoint.
Hi Ray,
This post is not showing up on your webpage for some reason. I can get to it from FB and from my RSS feed but not from your webpage.
Thomas
User error. Please ignore previous comment.
Should be fixed across the board for everyone. And fear not, it wasn’t a user error in your case. :(
Super interesting that they went with CIQ fields. Coming from software engineering myself, I’d wonder if part of this is due to issues of managing code changes across a large codebase (and large engineering team) – i.e., forcing their internal team to consume their own API (dog-fooding it) is a tactic to just get the feature out the door as opposed to marketing-inspired.
Another note – something I really value about the Stryd footpod is how crazy dead on (and just as important – consistent) it is, especially on the track. This means I can run distance or pace-defined repeats on any lane of the track, which lowers my stress level considerably early in the morning when there are often tons of people randomly walking any given lane.
Bet you’ve seen this, but I think speed/distance accuracy is actually Stryd’s killer feature – and to me, without that, power training for middle distances is much more frustrating.
Yeah, there’s definitely an element of what you’re saying in the first paragraph…
IDK. Considering the differences between various running power systems and the technical difficulties, this all seems a bit pulled out of thin air. When two different manufacturers start producing similar results I’ll look again. Until then it’s “8:35/mile in run today”.
Ray, would 2 people with similar weight running same pace by maybe different strides, have a similar result? Something to test – repeatably across athletes.
No, as running efficiency would impact things quite a bit potentially. Someone with the same weight could run faster with less power with a more efficient stride/form.
>>. When two different manufacturers start producing similar results I’ll look again. Until then it’s “8:35/mile in run today”.
But why 8:35/mile? Why not 3.11888372 meters per second?
I’m joking, but there is some fundamental truth – it’s less about the absolute value and more about what the “sensor” is measuring – the amount of work you’re putting out, which is a vastly different metric than speed. Two of the most important reasons to train with power (Jim Vance, Run With Power):
1.A power meter can help you improve your running form by identifying the amount of energy you’re wasting on non-forward movements.
2.Power quantifies intensity and eliminates other factors like weather, fatigue, and illness.
Yes these are modeled metrics (a pile of caveats), but assuming the sensors are accurate and the variability low in different conditions, relative changes in your workout history will illuminate performance improvements, especially when combined with speed and heart-rate.
Any hopes for Wahoo implementing something like this on the TICKR-X? IIRC you made a passing reference to Wahoo being capable of doing this when you wrote up one of your first running with power entries many moons ago. Got this post thru feedly as its not on the homepage, yet… did we break some kind of embargo?
Wahoo says they plan to implement HR-RD early next year in their TICKR straps, which would work with this.
As for post not showing up on homepage, no, just an annoying issue that’s been happening in last 1-2 weeks that devs are trying to figure out. Comes and goes. :( I could have posted last Thursday on it…but alas, decided for catching up on sleep. ;)
I just picked up a Stryd and I am quite happy with it. Like you noted, there’s no definitive way to validate accuracy, but it appears to measure consistently so I’m good with that… Not only that, it’s proven, at least to me, that it measures distance 99.9% accurately over multiple known distances/routes that I run. This helps increases confidence in its reading and results.
But, had I known this was coming, I probably would have waited on the Stryd. Mostly because I own all three of the compatible Garmin straps.
Also, side note, this post isn’t not available on your main page or blog link. Found it via Facebook.
As an eager FeetMe backer who will likely be waiting at least a few more months (based on the lack of public announcements) to start running with power, this is bittersweet news. On one hand, I’m happy that I already have a 935 and hrm-run to try out the RunPow when it is released, but overall, I think we would all be better off if Garmin allowed the ant+ power profile to connect in running mode so that external devices could broadcast (calculated or force-measured) power and we could record and view all of the details (including 3s or 10s average, normalized power, intensity factor, lap power, etc) and analyze with all of the currently available tools/reports on Garmin connect/strava / etc.
My worry is that because of their foray into RunPow with CIQ and lack of other announced/released actual power measurement device, Garmin is unlikely to “unlock” traditional power recording in the run app (since it does seem to be rather arbitrary that they allow certain sensors to connect in biking but not running).
(FeetMe hasn’t actually even discussed publication whether they’ll have a CIQ app, or offer the option to broadcast in the bicycling ant+ power profile, so this is all still wishful thinking and speculation.)
In short, with the instantiation of a Running Power TWG, a running power ANT+ device profile could follow. That’s effectively force Garmin to implement it within their running watches. It’s really up to 3rd party companies to make this happen by kicking that ball fast and hard.
Ray-
Have you received any updates from FeetMe and what they’re struggling with? It’s early days for running power meters, but they seemed to have some promise.
Hi there DC, love reading your reviews.
Does this mean the Vicoaxrive 3 will get running metrics with the pod or HRM tri/run?
Via the Connect IQ app, it will/could.
Hey Ray,
Looking for a little clarity. You have said multiple times the VA3 could get running metrics via connect IQ app. The phrasing is throwing me off a bit.
Does that mean the RD Pod will be able to connect directly to the VA3 during a run and display metrics, or you will have to have the app running/run metrics will only display after a workout is complete?
Indeed, it’s a bit tricky.
So, the Vivoactive 3 (or any of the mid-range watches), won’t get the ability to magically pair to an RD pod/HRM-TRI/HRM-RUN natively in terms of Running Dynamics.
However what’s happening is that Connect IQ in 2.40 gets the ability to pair via the HR-RD profile, which makes it easy for app developers to pair to those devices. It’s basically just like what you see for Muscle Oxygen and Cycling Power, and how you’ve got apps that support both of those across all devices these days. As part of 2.40 – FE-C is also added as a profile.
OK so if the VA3 and RD-POD won’t pair natively, but seems the running/ground/contact, etc DATA can be made available to any app via the 2.4 SDK – does that mean that the cool dynamics data will be shown in the GCM app, post-run? Still seeking that answer – thanks.
Thx Ray for that early insight. I totally agree with you, that a function like this belongs into the firmware of a watch.
Any thoughts if Garmin power via pod also could be used for exact or lets say better pace than GPS provides? This is one big plus I see on the Stryd side…
No, the RD-POD doesn’t provide pace today.
I lost interest when I got to the part which mention Fenix 3 is not supported…
Small typo:
In any event – back to the run. As you run this power number will fluctuate just like Stryd’s does. Run harder, and it’ll go up, go up-hills and it’ll go up assuming *you’re* putting out more power.
A running power device nor supported by any running watches.
That must mean there are.some new forerunners on the horizon!!
“nor supported by any running watches.”
Umm…I listed exactly which watches it’s being supported on.
I assume he means any running specific Forerunners like the 235/630. Other than the Vivoactive 3 everything listed is what would be considered a triwatch. That said do you think that Garmin isn’t going to bother with running specific watches in the mid to high range anymore and just go with the triwatches?
Proper power support hopefully coming soon according to stryd….
Essentially they’re referring to creation of a Running Power TWG. It’d be in the interests of companies like RunScribe and others to join that.
The dirty little secret is that if a TWG is created and a Running Power ANT+ Device Profile is instantiated, then Garmin is essentially forced to adopt it within their products. Garmin knows this of course, and isn’t opposed to it. The secondary secret is that if companies like Stryd or RunScribe go to ANT+ and say they need a profile by X date for Y product announcement, then ANT+ will usually nail that date at whatever speed is required.
That’s precisely what Garmin does every time they announce a new category (i.e. radar, lights), as do other companies for numerous other cases – all of which usually have public ANT+ device profiles.. Non-Garmin companies essentially need to be more confident and learn how to work the system.
If there’s any takeaway from Symposium this year (including things I haven’t posted about yet), it’s basically: You can no longer blame Garmin from a standards standpoint. For those that endured the rough livestream quality, I talk about some of these examples. Hopefully I’ll have the full non-crappy video stream up soon.
Oh, and as a casual reminder – at every ANT+ Symposium for about 6 years in my talk I have usually slammed Garmin on sandboxing standards and blocking 3rd party companies from leveraging advanced tech on their devices.
Interesting… hopefully there is now enough groundswell for the various power brokers (see what I did there.. :) ) to get this moving.
Were runscribe there at the symposium ?
Is there any way for us mere mortals to track progress of a TWG, or do you have to be on the inside ?
No method to get into TWG’s. I’m not even allowed in those. Though, any ANT+ member can join a TWG (paying members only I believe, though for a company the cost is trivial).
In the case of some of them, various members will usually tell me what’s going on. Or ANT+ themselves sometimes.
They’re missing a trick there – I would have though that having someone like you as an indepedant ‘user’ view on some of this stuff would a huge asset. Although you’d need to invent a day with 30 hours in it!
Personally I’d love to sit and listen to some of it…
So if we see a “Running Power” ANT+ profile implemented and the requirement for a CIQ app negated then *theoretically* could we see running power making it’s way to some of these older models such as the F3 and 920XT?
Firmware updates for the F3 have been few and far between and the 920XT even worse, but that’s a tiny avenue of hope!
I’m not too fussed either way because I think pace is a superior metric, but it’d be interesting to see how the numbers align.
The Fenix3 is out of firmware space, which is really why firmware updates have largely stalled. You’ll still continue (yes, really) to see some very minor tweaks, but it’s basically things where they can change a single line of code to fix/tweak something. Having talked to the dev team, the steps they’ve gone to, to try and find additional space is fairly mind-boggling.
Obviously, it’s a situation only they got themselves into. But you have to remember that watch was basically in production over three years ago (with parts specified another 6-8 months prior). This was all before CIQ was even announced. At that point upper management at Garmin didn’t even believe CIQ would be a valid long term avenue. It was mostly viewed as a cute experiment.
Things are much different now of course (especially within management), but sometimes it’s hard to turn on the way-back clock and remember how the world was.
Maybe they could dump all the golf stuff and that thing that electrocutes dogs.
Interesting. This has been a bone of contention with me. I have been a Garmin watch user for running since the original 2xx watch. Most have been buggy and failed within a year or so. But I haven’t found a good alternative. I currently have a Fenix 3HR and have been happy with the watch overall, and unlike other Garmin’s (fingers crossed here!!!), it is still working!! But, I have been quite unhappy that they so quickly stopped supporting it with upgrades. Do I understand you correctly that this is just bad luck due to the ConnectIQ situation, and future Fenix watches will not become obsolete in terms of upgrades so quickly? If so, I am bummed about no upgrades, but a little less unhappy with Garmin overall.
For some reason this post won’t show up from the blog view… I could only find it via a link on Stryd forum. Is this a error?
Great news, BTW
Just trying to get my head around this 100-150W difference in powers.
Why are the elevations (Y axis) in the Garmin and Stryd plots so different?? Are they not from the same terrain?
Overlaying the two images is a 2 minute job on the computer but not with the axis values so off, make them comparable.
Another way to overlay would be to just print out the two pages on identical scaling on A4 paper landscape , hold them against the sunlight. Old school but works.
-RG
As noted in the post, I didn’t have control over the screenshots on the Garmin side, because they were done on Garmin’s internal beta servers. As noted I sent them my file and they sent me back a pile of screenshots.
Still, it really doesn’t matter in this case, it’s very easy to look and see they are offset by 100-150w. Certainly it would have been my preference to have both data sets shown, but that wasn’t in the realm of possible this time.
Great more focus on Power :)
But what I really want from Garmin is their performance tracking and implementation of FirstBeat data to be extended to indoor use as well. So according to FirstBeat treadmill running is fine for providing form power data – Garmin does not implement it since they obviously does not trust their own speed sources on a treadmill. FirstBeat data calculations are obviously dependent on reliable speed detection.
But with Stryd foot pod – I have close to perfect tracking of speed on treadmill. Much better than GPS speed in any case. So now VO2max and training effect could easily be implemented for indoor activities. Same goes for indoor cycling with power meters – which FirstBeat algorithms supports but I still think Garmin does not.
But maybe run power from Garmin is first step towards full implementation of FirstBeat Algo’s.
You’ll see more/better integration of FirstBeat going into Q1 2018, mostly on the backend for things like cross-device sync between multiple devices (Edge/Vivo/Fenix/Forerunner), as well as site/app surfacing of that information.
You’re starting to slowly see things. Garmin is keenly aware of the gap here and looking to remedy. As they themselves noted ‘it’s impacting our best customers’. It won’t be a switch overnight, but you’ll just start seeing the individual gaps be filled one at a time.
Of course, doesn’t really answer your indoor question…but seemed like a good place to stick it. ;)
That’s some of the best news I’ve heard. My Vo2Max has been screwed up for the last couple of weeks after adding a Vivoactive 3 which had to “learn” me so the graph bounces between 48 and 53 depending on whether my last run was done with it or my 735.
:) Garmins footpod generally is not very good on treadmills as they even with calibration tends to drift. Especially as you get better at running you need to keep re-calibrating. I NEVER have that issue with my Stryd sensor(s). And at lower speed < 7km/h Stryd is much better than Garmin but still not perfect.
But since I have run outdoors for a bit in Spain – I was surprised how bad GPS really is for speed/distance (Fenix 5x) if you run among buildings even only 3-4 story ones.
One day my Stryd did not connect and I found out the hard way about how bad GPS is :) I could not understand why my pace was at 7:39/km as my feeling was around 6:20 6:30/km – after a few minutes the right pace came back to around 6:20. When I looked at the log – i found out GPS had cut a lot of corners and I lost about 600m on a 9km run.
Next run with Stryd as distance measure – run distance was back at 9km within about 50 meters of the other runs of the same route.
Garmin should just buy Stryd and get it over with.
I'm not affiliated but backed kickstarter – upgraded to Footpod.I did not like the chest strap Stryd very much but the Stryd foot-pod is like my Apple AirPods – they are my favourite low weight running gadgets :)
I’m not seeing this article on the site, either on the home page or under product reviews. Thought I was going crazy till I scrolled back through Twitter and found the link
Sorry, it’s a bug being worked on. It’ll appear for logged in users, but not everyone else. :(
Okay, that is pretty cool.
I can see this being the next sensor automatically baked into the watch. I wonder how much real world use this will offer runners? Certainly worth playing with for sure.
Heads up – minor typo in the first sentence, seen instead of soon.
Cheers, Rich
So—Fenix 3—what hope is there with getting running power onto this watch? Waiting for a developer to make an app – because Garmin isn’t? Is that basically it? Or it won’t be able to do the equivalent; ever?
Stryd already makes an app for the Fenix 3.
Will I need their power metre though? Or I can use HRM-3 Run? ;o
You’d need their meter, which transmits power values directly. The Garmin field is calculating them from other values, the Stryd one wouldn’t.
I am living in a flat area. The next mountain is 45 minutes by bike away. I virtually ever do running on a flat area. Does it makes any sense to mesure power instead of speed on a flat run?
Theoretically you can use power to determine efficiency (watts per speed). You could track long-term improvements in efficiency as well as the breakdown in efficiency that occurs late in hard workouts or races. On the other hand, you can pretty much do that right now with running dynamics. GCT is a pretty good indicator of your relative efficiency over long periods of time, and all of your running dynamics metrics will tend to get crazy at the end of really hard efforts (even if pace stays the same).
I don’t know how it is with runners, but as a cyclist you can easily tell the difference between a warm, windless, day and a cold, windy day on the exact same course. It’s harder in the latter case, and will show up in power numbers. Or suppose you did go to the mountains to run. Then your power numbers would tell you if you’re making the same effort as in the flats even if you do go slower on average.
The question here is whether the numbers are “right” or not and what they mean. Cycling is much easier to figure out, because there are no short impacts with a foot covered with elastomer going on.
Current running power meters (OK the Stryd at this time) are nothing like bike ones that measure direct force. From my experience of a Stryd it does not model the wind or the terrain at all. Witness a test running both ways on a beach for the same RPE. Around 100W difference so useless in that environment which would be one great place to use it. In theory, if it could model the effect of wind then it could be very useful in a flat location.
This is bullshit, I have a Fenix 3 and a 735xt. Not planning on buying another high end watch only to loose updates after a year.
Let’s hope Wahoo goes into the running watch business.
The FR735XT simply doesn’t have a barometric altimeter. There’s really no getting around that requirement.
As noted previously, the Fenix3 was the first of two Connect IQ watches out there, and Garmin simply ran out of space there on updates and processing overhead. It seems like they’ve learned a fair bit there – but being the first watches in the 3rd party platform pipeline almost three years ago meant that they hadn’t quite learned all their lessons yet.
It’s one thing to complain about a company that stops supporting its products and fixing bugs, but I don’t understand why people purchase products knowing their capabilities and then get upset years later when the manufacturer doesn’t provide free upgrades–leaving aside the distressing trend of companies introducing incomplete products and promising future features that should have been there to begin with.
Agreed JR. Anyway Wahoo is a bad example as, for instance, you will need to buy the new Kickr if also want to add the Kickr Climb when it comes out. That was seemingly done for similar reasons to here – the older ones just were not able to support it on hardware grounds. Also, I mentioned elsewhere, the 3HR got a new beta the other day.
I’m sort of surprised that a pod on your shorts would have more ‘power’ than one on your feet.
Can you wear the Garmin pod on your shoe and see how the numbers change?
Just makes more sense to me that your foot/ankle is where where power is coming from but maybe I’m “locked” into that paradigm since I’ve had footpods for 20+ years.
You mentioned that the Garmin RD pod does not give you speed/distance even though it can measure it (via an accelerometre). That seems to be one metric that helps tie into power that can be measured, both indoors and outdoors. Would be nice to have.
As I own a stryd pod, I have always seen the speed and distance #s to be better than Garmin’s. Usually close though.
Quick question regarding the avg. power in the split overview. I am using Stryd and was looking for that information a couple of weeks ago. I rechecked today after I read your article and the avg. does not show with Stryd. Is there any way to activate it or does it require a different version of Garmin connect for Stryd to show in the split overview?
“CIQ fields can’t be used as intensity target” – this is the thing that sucks the most, in my opinion.
For what it’s worth, Stryd have worked around this with a Connect IQ app (PowerRace) which allows you to dial in a target power and it then beeps and vibrates if you go outside of the target zone. That’s fine for runs where you’re trying to maintain a steady effort, but it’s not very helpful for structured training (eg you can’t tell it you’re going to run 5 minute repeats at Z5 with 1 minute recoveries). I guess a workaround is to carry two watches …
Hello Ray,
From a completely Subjective perspective. Watching the two different power numbers during your run and looking at the data after the run (Stryd smoothing vs Garmin). Which one of the two feels more like it matches or visually represents your RPE. Or provides more actionable data both in run and post run?
I think that is the catch to bring a metric like this to the masses, or to make it a really awesome game changing break through for training and racing. Data is always cool, but to be able to briefly glance down at your watch while climbing that rocky trail in the middle of a race, or tempo session and adjust accordingly and confidently is hopefully the end goal.
I kinda hope someone will whip up an algorithm that combines things like vertical speed/pace/heart rate/power and spits out a 1-5 or 1-10 number to train and race by.. should be simple right :)
Anyway, Does one Feel more usable to you currently?
Thanks
I’ve given a power a go on the Stryd for some months now but TBH not sure it has ever got past a view point of “interesting” – here is another number to look at. Running is quite different from saying cycling in that if you run uphill you largely do it one way whereas on the bike you can grind, spin or somewhere in the middle and get up the hill at the same speed but maybe not the same effort. Power there valuable to analyse those differences. I see a lot of comments from Stryd users that it makes for a great foot pod and so gives me a far better instance pace than say GPS which I don’t disagree with and yet for maximum usage of power, you should not really care what your pace is but, of course, to runners it does and hard to think it won’t suddenly. Then there is the also question of product endorsement and how it is being used at elite levels. In cycling stuff like GCN is daily telling you what the pros do and implying it could help you too. You never really get that in running and, no disrepect intended, I don’t think I have heard of any of the runners Stryd mention as avid users of their product.
Elite runners use the track for most workouts.
Ray,
Looking forward to your experience with the Arion’s!
Been testing them for a while too. From a technical viewpoint, the Arion’s sure sound more trustworthy. With measurements on both feet and spread all across your insole.
Though I can’t get my head around all the data just yet. There’s so much of it and no easy way to interpret them yet.
And of course, the main drawback that it requires your phone (at the moment).
This makes a lot of sense to me. Traditionally sensors have processed their data internally and sent completed metrics to the watch. That was sensible back when battery life/processor power in the watch was an issue. Times have changed though. We now have watches with more processing power than we need, battery life that’s fine, and more data points to work with.
It seems like the next big change for these devices should be to receive more raw and high definition information from a sensor to allow the watch to decide how to work with that information, or even just store it for a computer to later use. HR data sent once a second is nice, but ECG straps receive constant analog information which could be digitized and recorded, allowing for various stats to be created alongside more medical uses. Power is obviously a great catalyst because it doesn’t justify a new sensor, just needs interpretation of sensor data already available. This will ultimately need a complete overhaul of the system and lead to data feeds (aka properly raw sensor information) and a structured way to build that into stats including some kind of “relies on” ordering for building up information from data.
The question then changes from “is the power accurate” to “is the VO feed accurate”. We’re already at a state where lots of assumptions are made. VO isn’t measured directly, and neither is pace, so any power data will naturally have a wide margin for error. I can see cycle power meters moving from sending a current power ticker to streaming strain gauge data in real time within a couple of years too. Interestingly that would then free us to use a Stages algorithm with PowerTap strain gauge data, opening up a whole new market for algorithms while potentially lowering device costs. It would also give researchers much, much more rich data if the high def streaming happens.
Dave, you’re missing a big part of this. Its not just processing power, its the amount of data too. The amount of raw data from sensors is very large and is filtered down to broadcast over Ant or BLE that saves lots of power on its own. Why do you think Ant/BLE take up so much less power then wifi?
The fact that many of these sensors use specialized processing and not general purpose processors saves processing too. Watches still don’t have that much general purpose computing power to make up for that.
Not missing that at all. Some data needs to be small and real time and some doesn’t. Also, bandwidth available in modern BTLE is way more than was available when HR tickers were first created. Store and forward is also a thing though, so there’s no reason post processing couldn’t be used to augment what was available during a run. The important thing right now that any data scientist will tell you is that you need to capture all of the data.
I wonder if the pace of these advancements are going to lead to fitness devices being like phones. Meaning, most people probably upgrade their phone every 2 years. ( I don’t, but I am sure most do)
Are we moving into the realm where I will be replacing my 935, which I just bought, in a year because it won’t have the capable hardware (see 920xt) to support the software.
We live in exciting times.
In recent years I have swopped Garmins (920, then 735, now 935) quicker than my iPhone 6S! In reality there is not a massive reason to do so as 95% of the time it is the GPS distance/pace, stopwatch time and HR info I look at the most and that bit is pretty much unchanged. Then again maybe now I am “happy” with a 2 year old phone as I now don’t always need to pull it out to show me what messages have received.
I can’t see that anyone else has already asked this (so please forgive me if I’ve missed it), but would having a foot pod paired with to the the Garmin give RunPow a less ‘noisy’ output, more in line with Stryd? Given that instant pace must be a significant component of a power calculation, it follows that foot pod pace would result in a better calculated power than that calculated from the more noisy GPS derived instant pace. I note that in the video you mention that both the watches recording RunPow and Stryd are set to GPS pace, but of course Stryd is already calculating pace onboard the pod and not relying on the pace data from the watch to calculate the Stryd power.
Another related question that I haven’t seen answered; does RunPow work with indoor running? (so using watch accelerometer or foot pod pace instead of GPS)
I recall Stryd saying that pace is not directly used to compute power as when they were fiddling with their algorithms to avoid “calibrating” the thing for current pace then they said that this should not effect the power numbers. After all if power was mainly a function of pace offset by the current grade of where you are running then in most cases they would be little point as unless terrain is particularly hilly pace when running is way more consistent than it is when cycling. OK it seems VO is included but that seems pretty consistent within my runs. That all said power is highly likely to go up when you go faster assuming all other factors are the same.
Thanks Tim. Interesting that instant pace is not ditectly used in Stryd. I’m still wondering if the Garmin RunPow does use pace though and if it works indoors.
I’m waiting on delivery of my RunScribe Plus units to answer the question if they have a barometric altimeter or if they use another way to calculate that element of the power equation. There’s no theoretical reason why accelerometers couldn’t calculate the height difference between steps, which would give you instant grade change; arguably better than barometer derived grade for instant power calculation perhaps?
Well sure there is. Accelerometers that fit in pods and watches are just not that accurate. Noise and error will soon overwhelm accuracy. Barometric altimeters have a precision of a meter or less.
If perfect accelerometers were available, Garmin and the others wouldn’t have to bother with GPS. Just integrate the equations of motion, and you’d know exactly where you were and at what velocity. Nuclear submarines do this to high accuracy from what I’ve read, but the captain or navigator don’t wear the accelerometer on their wrists.
But those same ‘crummy’ accelerometers in current foot pods already measure stride length (the horizontal) to a surprising degree of accuracy; so why would it not be reasonable to assume they couldn’t do the same with the vertical. Cummulative errors over time might make them not suitable for tracking absolute elevation changes over the course of an activity, but surely it’s the short term elevation change over a few strides that’s relevant to a power computation. With the second generation of pod sensors (Stryd and RunScribe Plus) having far superior sensors to the old Garmin ones, plus computing readings hundreds of times a second (500Hz for RunScribe Plus), I don’t see them reliably deriving altitude change from the accelerometers as implausible.
They do measure vertical oscillation however which clearly is a factor in the power calculations as Ray notes.