Did software update 12.20 introduce another new bug?

TMK17 sorry to derail this thread further, but to clarify:
- Only the Garmin Running Power app can use Garmin running power because (apparently) all the Power calculations are done within the app, as opposed to...
- ...Stryd, which calculates Power in the pod itself and transmit it using the open Cycling Power standard

So any CIQ app can use power from Stryd by either:
- Having the user pair the Stryd with their watch as a power meter, for multisport watches that support it
- Connecting to the Stryd directly

No app other than the standard Garmin app will ever be able to replicate Garmin Running Power unless someone can guess or reverse-engineer the proprietary formula.

Having said all of that, here is an app that provides "virtual run power" without the use of specialized hardware (*): Running Power Estimator
(It also cites the paper / formula that is used for calculations, although there could be some undisclosed refinements within the app itself.)

(*) I guess they're all "virtual" since they all estimate power, as opposed to measuring it.

I tried it out a couple of times on steady state runs and compared it to Garmin Running Power. Since the results for Garmin Running Power tended to be 25-35% higher than RPE (just from sampling random points on the graph), I decided to stop using RPE. The general trend / shape of the graph was similar, which makes sense since they get speed and altitude from the same sources.

I don't own a Stryd so I have no idea how either app compares to it. But judging from the other comment about Garmin Running Power being 30% too high, maybe RPE gives similar values to Stryd. As a matter of fact, for one of my runs, the average power from Garmin Running Power was about 31% higher than RPE. So maybe RPE's numbers are fine.

TBH I use the Garmin Running Power field (or Combo Running Power), but I absolutely never look at it, either during or after my runs....

WillNorthYork, indeed we are off topic now. After studying the most relevant literature and doing my own calculations on running power, I am 100 % convinced that RPE and STRYD are closer to the truth than the Garmin RP app is. It does not render Garmin RP completely useless, but if you compare it against scientifically validated mathematical methods or the results of runners using other power meters, it is simply wrong.
Another issue with Garmin RP is the use of GPS for pace calculations: I guess that we are all aware of the FR935's GPS accuracy (if not visit fellrnr's website for a comparison). After I have started pacing my races with power, I do not want to miss the accuracy of the STRYD footpod any more. BTW: the RPE app provides results that are very close to those of the footpod; hence, it is definitely a good alternative if you do not want to spend money on a STRYD and willing to tolerate power oscillations due to GPS-based pace calculations (cheaper footpods may help to improve pace accuracy, if calibrated reasonably).

• [IMG2=JSON]{"alt":"philipshambrook","data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/forums.garmin.com\/core\/image.php?userid=665&thumb=1&dateline=1531037674"}
[/IMG2]

#27.1
philipshambrook commented
Yesterday, 06:47 PM
Literature, particular written by those with a vested interest in a product, is not the same as evidence based research. Running power as a training metric is only two or three years old so has no real history. Granted formulae to estimate human mechanical power from running have been around since the late 80's but that is not the same as saying it is a viable metric to base training on.
BTW, glad that it appears to have worked for you.

• Yes, the metrics used for running power has been performed and studied on force-plate treadmills in laboratories for the last 30 years by those with no vested interest in marketing. It was 2014 that Stryd introduced it's prototype power meter to use those metrics outside a lab and made it available to consumer's in 2015. Now, how well Styrd and other running power meters perform may be in question, but we'll have to disagree on if it's a viable metric to base training on. As I stated before, personal trainer's and coaches without vested interest have tried this method of training and have had positive results. I have yet to read anything stating training with power caused a decline in performance. Grant it, I'm sure there have been some who saw no change at all, but because many have seen positive results I don't agree that the benefit of running with power is still questionable. The same can be said with training with pace or heart rate. When weight training, is it better to do splits or total body? These different types of training may have positive results for some and not all, but no one questions that there are benefits to each.
  

Same here for the last 4 runs in the last week i got a message that my watch was updated to 12.20. Now i saw that my watch is still on 12.10 but the 12.20 software is downloaded and ready to install hehehehe
But i cant do a manual update... my watch says "Update failed. Try again" :p:confused:
Never had problems with this before and i just switched back from 5+ for running because gps is better ;)

Continuing the off-topic convo...

The big difference between running by pace/HR vs power is that running power is only estimated, while pace and HR are measured. Just my two cents, but most ppl I train with barely even look at their stats - the main purpose of the watch is so they can check their pace occasionally and sync to strava. Often people aren’t even taking manual laps at the beginning of intervals (so they have no idea what their lap pace is), and they’re often pausing their watch during rest (so they have no idea how long they rested after the fact, nor what their recovery HR was, etc.)

And many elites seem to be happy with a Timex.

I personally like stats for the amusement factor, but for myself, I only got faster when I lost weight and trained with faster ppl. Looking at any stats other than pace, time and maybe HR (for long runs) didn’t help me one bit. E.g. running dynamics only told me that I limp noticeably when I’m injured, which is something I already knew.

Then again, I never maxed out my performance to the point where I thought that data was push me over the top. There was always something else like weight or injuries holding me back.

I’m curious whether people who train with power are basically using it as “the final piece of the puzzle” or whether it’s a replacement for traditional training by pace or HR. For example, I never thought of training by HR as a replacement for training by pace or feel, only as a supplement.

WillNorthYork I didn't want to continue with the hijacked thread either, but it says you don't accept PM's, so I'm replying here. Running power isn't really an estimate. There are test you can do that sets your fixed (measured) critical power. It's very similar to conducting a Max HR test. It's suggested to conduct this test every 6 weeks as your critical power number will change as you improve. Training with pace or HR is great if you're training on a flat surface. If you throw in hills, you can basically throw out pace or HR. HR can be affected by diet, medication and lags 10-15 secs behind. My HR zone doesn't help me if I'm getting data from when I was climbing a hill as I'm actually in the process of descending it. Same goes with pace. Do I push harder going up that hill to maintain pace possibly burning myself out for the finish? Can I actually push myself harder on the descent because I feel like I have more in the tank, or maintain what I have because my pace is back on track? With power, I don't have these issues. So, to answer your question. I decided to completely ignore pace and HR and try running power only. I'm 54 and have been running since I was a teenager. I'm far from a elite runner. In the short 9 months of using running power only I have found my greatest gains and they come much faster and easier than any other training method I've tried. I was skeptical at first, but I'm now completely sold on running power.

TMK17 interesting stuff. Does critical power affect the number that is produced by the Stryd? If so, I still feel like that would be calibrating an estimated value. None of the vendors are directly measuring running power, they are calculating/estimating it based on speed, grade, and maybe some other running dynamics. The fact that Garmin Running Power and other sources of power differ wildly kind of supports that point.

As far as pace goes, isn’t there already grade adjusted pace? Nobody trains with it, but I don’t see much difference in principle, except that a GAP number would be a lot more meaningful to me as a runner, compared to power, which seems pretty abstract to me. You could even calculate grade adjusted HR, although that might be silly.

Glad it’s working for you! If I were perfectly healthy, uninjured and at my ideal weight, and I had maxed out every other training option (like strength and increasing weekly mileage), I might look at power. I just feel there’s so many other ways for me to improve, personally.

TMK17 interesting stuff. Does critical power affect the number that is produced by the Stryd?

Again, my apologizes to the OP. I believe the forum is currently having issues with PM'ing. There are a few different test you can do to obtain your critical power (CP) number. Regardless of which test is performed, the result is basically the same. Stryd uses 5 power zones and others break it down into 7. Mine is 284. Think of it as your threshold pace. At 284, Stryd has me in zone 3, 91-100% of my CP, while Vance, who uses 7 zones, has me in zone 4, 96-105% of my CP. There are a two other types of power training zones used that I'm aware of, but they all fall in line with each other. The problem with Garmin Power is when I know I'm running at my CP of 284, Garmin Power is showing something around 330.

Just so there's no confusion, I can perform the CP test using Garmin's data and then use any of the 4 power zone training plans. I believe it was Phil who pointed this out also. Using the different pods/straps to calculate running power has been pretty much the same across the board and "accepted", then Garmin gets in the game with their calculated number and it kind of threw a wrench into things. Think of it like measuring your VO2 Max. Red-Poor, Orange-Fair, Green-Good, Blue-Excellent and Purple-Superior. Based on age, etc..., you'll get a score that is pretty much standard. Mine is 44 in the upper green zone. Now, someone comes around and says we calculate your VO2 Max at 86. It's still in the upper green zone for your age, but we want to call it an 86 instead of the "accepted" 44. Bottom line is there isn't a set standard for calculating your CP number. Styrd took the reigns and were the first to use running power and their calculated numbers became the norm for something without a standard. Garmin joined the game late, came out with different numbers without any explanation as to how or why, and here we are. :D

Connect it to a computer. Look in the GARMIN folder you'll probably find an incomplete GUPDATE.GCD (mine was 38kilobytes). Delete it and let it download again (should be about 3Mbytes)

This is what I needed to do to get the update to work for me finally.

Messy update process this time.