@GRAMIN Are there any plans to support power based structured workouts?
I spent a lot of time trying to find the reason why the Power-Zones are not shown in the workouts from 2peak - to come to the conclusion that is not possible. It would been great if Garmin made that clear on the Running Power FAQ site - would have saved me a lot of frustration and time.
Running Power does not make much sense to me without the opportunity of a structured workout based on Power.
It'd certainly be nice if they would - they've done a fairly dodgy job of supporting run power, instead of making it a native field. I typically follow a "pace based" running plan, but convert the pace to power for each stage before I run so I know what to target, and then don't get any real guidance during the run if I forget what power targets I was aiming for. It's pretty clunky.
It is my opinion that in its current implementation, Garmin Running Power is unusable for any real time use. For example, I was running on a long uphill with my heart rate being steady, my form being steady, my effort being steady, and running power was fluctuating from 300 to 400W for no apparent reason. A smoothing option (e.g. an average of the last 3s) is should be introduced in order to allow any runner to use this metric during his/her runs. I have seen Garmin's response on that question in their Running Power FAQ, but still, what they provide now is simply not working consistently in order to allow runners to take it into account for their training or races.
I wosh garmin would release a footpod like the stryd already and have it be native with the 935. I dont have a stryd as the old footpod is still working fine for me (use it a lot on treadmill) and I love the cr2032 as I dont want another thing to charge getting a stryd. No doubt it is a good product and accurate even though I never would care about the power metrics.
It is my opinion that in its current implementation, Garmin Running Power is unusable for any real time use. For example, I was running on a long uphill with my heart rate being steady, my form being steady, my effort being steady, and running power was fluctuating from 300 to 400W for no apparent reason. A smoothing option (e.g. an average of the last 3s) is should be introduced in order to allow any runner to use this metric during his/her runs. I have seen Garmin's response on that question in their Running Power FAQ, but still, what they provide now is simply not working consistently in order to allow runners to take it into account for their training or races.
i disagree - i paced myself using power at 2 marathons (where i ran 2:53 / 2:51) - the barcelona one had several hilly sections - and by pacing with power i did not surged on the long uphill sections, maintaining around 380w, although the pace was on the low side (around 4:20-4:30) and without hitting any walls throught the race. i also use power when training (together with hr) and for me it works pretty well...
I also use power for pacing I and T runs besides races, and it has proven (at least for me) to be the key parameter for sustainable pacing. However, the power data calculated by Garmin does not agree with the available physical running models. I addressed this issue in a post in this thread, in case you are interested in more information. This is the reason why the STRYD foot pod is mandatory for me. Those who are not willing to spend their money on the STRYD foot pod may have a look at the Running Power Estimator app, which produces reasonable results based on pace and altitude. However, one should keep in mind that using GPS data (instead data coming from a calibrated foot pod) for pacing is likely to incorporate the given (and high) GPS uncertainties into the power calculation.
Worstje I just checked the articles you posted earlier on this thread. So, I can see three major issues with Garmin Running Power. 1. Running power estimations are not in line with available physical running models. Garmin-estimated power is always 20-30% higher than real power. 2. Running power estimations are wrong when running in uphills and downhills. This means that even if you accepted the always 30% higher power estimation, you still cannot base your uphill-downhill running on power. 3. Running power values fluctuate too much to be taken into account during a run, even with a footpod attached. Averaging the power values over a 3-6s period would be an option, since averaging the pace over 4-5 seconds is working fine. Stryd, AFAIK, provides such an option. Garmin does not.
tsofron thanks for your input. I certainly am not able to base my uphill running on Garmin running power, since it fluctuates from 300-420 watts with no apparent change on my form, heart rate, inclination, pace, cadence, foot strike. I was running on a road with no trees or high buildings, so pace was also accurate, with no fluctuations.
well - this is it has to be consistent (just like a normal cycling power meter - i don't care if it over / under reads); indeed, a 3s smoothed value would be of greater help, but then again - it is what it is :D. hopefully the tech will evolve and in 1-2 years we'll see a better model / algorithm (even better compared to stryd, runscribe etc)....
One thing to note though, the location of the sensor contributes to the measured vertical oscillation, which is a large contributor to total running power. This likely partially contributes to the differences in reported numbers.
Vertical oscillation may be a large contributor towards running power, but I don't believe the sensor location is the reason for the inflated numbers seen with Garmin Power. I've read the report conducted by van Dijk and van Megen and I agree that Garmin is about 30% higher than my Stryd after comparing the two for about a month. During this time, I ran with both my Stryd and my HRM-Tri recording running dynamics from both. What I found was the recorded vertical oscillation from both were nearly identical every run. In all fairness, Joey never said the sensor location for vertical oscillation was the reason for the difference in numbers. He suggested it may be partially responsible for the differences. Had I seen a difference in the reported data, at the most, I could say the same. But since I'm seeing the same data, it seems reasonable that I can excluded the sensor location for vertical oscillation for the differences. I would be interested if others using a HRM-Tri or Run and a Stryd see the same and come to the same conclusion.
Garmin and Stryd measure/estimate VO in a different way.
The Garmin chest strap can provide a direct measurement of VO of the upper body due to its location.
The Stryd footpod obviously cannot do this and measures/calculates the vertical component of the power you generate and from that combined with information about your weight and height calculates the VO of your centre of mass.
The two ways of determining VO provide different numbers.
