HRV very low and native power issues

HRV its personal,you can't compare with other, the best example is in the reviews of Desfit and DC rainmaker they have different values, Des values is like your's,low. I have stryd too and the power numbers are different,but the way they react to pace changes, hills or downhills is very similar, they only have different ways to calculate power. If you are good with stryd, stick with him. 

HRV is individual. My baseline is 48-59. Yours should be 30-50 or sth. Thats why you have to wear the watch atleast 3 weeks before garmin algorithms calculate that.

In the running power world there is no right or wrong atm. Garmin numbers tend to be higher. You should only compare numbers of same device+strap. Otherwise its pointless.

the watt-stryd and the  watt-garmin are not a watt and it s usual and normal that garmin-watt is hundred more than the stryd-watt

True, running "power" is just a made up metric. Choose one system and stick to it. DCR explains it well: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn6LmqwUVCE

It's interesting to see how the statement that there's no standard way to measure running power (which is correct) is more and more diluted in the way that people think that it's "just a made-up metric" where Watts are not actual Watts.

Yes there are different ways and opinions of calculating a runner's power (and there plenty of ways of misestimating the result), but that neither means that the output values are completely made up nor that they don't mean anything in physical context.

The main (but not only) difference which leads to the afore-mentioned, large discrepancies is that Garmin estimates the total mechanical power (allowing for reuse of stored mechanical energy by muscles etc.), whereas many other solutions attempt to estimate only the part of mechanical power that is provided by the metabolism.

Yes, what you say makes sense. What I meant by made-up is that I too can think up my own running power model dependent on certain inputs and claim that its output is the best. But it would only be a hand-waving argument because it would in no way be scientifically verifiable. There's a ton of possible parameters that could never be known for each individual runner that would have to be estimated, reducing the quality of the model output. Compare it to cycling (mechanical) power which is a known function of cadence and torque. That is verifiable by anyone down to <1% and anyone who released a power meter that gave halved or doubled values compared to everyone else would be laughed out of town.

The one positive thing I can say about all the different running power values is that they are at least similarly shaped, mostly just scaled up or down differently with some other noise. So the outputs are not made up, they just look different based on their different assumptions/inputs and the model design. That's why it's best to choose one and live with it until the mess is sorted out, it's still early days.

doubleoseven1986 said:

"just a made-up metric" where Watts are not actual Watts.

They have no idea on the surface I'm running on and that affects a lot of the watts, so it's not very scientifically backed up metric generally. No direct measurement like in cycling watts.

I think for this reason, any future calculations with watts needs to be track or road specific, like the trail run activity doesn't effect vo2 etc because it's too variable. 

Garmin has VO2 estimation for Trail runs. It can be disabled if it doesn't work for you, but there it is. I think they can do some estimations of the surfaces based on ground contact time if they have data on your normal runs and so on. But as there is no measurement and data they have are indirect, the running watts cannot be as good as cycling watts and the claims that it's made-up metric has merit on a sense that it's just estimation on based on whatever stuff which has little scientific backing on how to measure it indirectly.