Excellent as always, Ray. The new running dynamics are definitely intriguing, even as I recently purchased the Garmin 955 standard version. Love the watch, but missing the AW7 functionality (which comes in handy as an RN in a hospital). Really hoping to see more with Apple’s direction (battery life, etc.) to determine if I’ll be making another change come the fall. With the series 8, I think minimum 3 days battery life could be a game changer for many of us. Just wish I could know their plans before the return period for the 955! 🤣
Indeed, I think the more I use these features (running power, and now triathlon), the more I suspect we'll see some shift in focus on hardware from Apple. They honestly kinda have to. Especially around wet finger-type scenarios. The battery is important, but usability during a triathlon was difficult in terms of interactions (fine if you left it alone). And then similarly, I had plenty of usability issues while running intervals in Greece with hot sweaty weather.
This is fantastic since I lost my Stryd pod a few weeks ago. As always, a fantastic detailed and very useful review. Can't wait for this update in a few weeks.
Curios if you can add stryd foot pod as a power meter/ or foot pod, and it will use power from stryd. Not that this is necessary, as I use the stryd app anyways on the Apple Watch. Just curious if this is possible.
If you only going to wear your watch some time during some run and not always wear it on daily basis too, is it still make sense to get a smartest h at all when all the data wont be sccurate?
Nice one! We really need running power to be standardized, so that values are comparable and usable. Hopefully, Strava will offer graphs for running power like we have with cadence and all at some point.
Great stuff. Thank you. I’m still a STRYD guy as I think power measured by foot energy exertion is better for me. Just my opinion. Look forward to seeing if they do any adjustments until final release.
Yup, I initially had it in the video, but cut it out in editing as it was really wordy and clunky. But, you can view the written equivalent here: www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/06/running-power-comparison-garmin-stryd-polar-coros.html
Shame it's only out from Series 6 and above, even the SE got it. I do think it's because the always on sensors (barometer, altimeter) Just bought a used Series 5...unlucky... Just hope that the hearth rate zones will show up during cycling too.
Oh really? I was hoping to test it on my Mrs S4. Just boils down to money really! watchOS8 really killed both my S3 battery life, I think I will stick to the Forerunner 55 now
@@mvp_kryptonite might going to update if the beta 2 comes out today I really want to try out heart rate zones, and see if they are available for cycling
You can use calories burned in a given amount of time to estimate your power output. For a nice 2 mile run in 17 minutes Garmin says i averaged 349 watts and burned 217 calories. If i used the calories burned in 17 minutes to estimate my average watts, it comes to around 212 watts. My weight is around 167 lbs or so. 212 is way closer to the same watts i would do on the bike with that same effort 👍
Using Stryd for 3 years, I can tell you its only useful for measuring distance (if calibrated correctly for the given shoes). The uphill efforts really underestimated, when your hr goes to threshold and the power is just slightly increasing you know something is odd (using hr strap ofc)
Fully agree with that. Useful for instant pace too. Many people wrongfully believe that Stryd does not need calibration. Auto calibration (what Stryd does out of the box by using GPS distance) defeats the purpose of having a foot pod.
@@Doireallyneedthis he probably means the increase in measured power doesn't reflect the actual increase in effort (hence actual power). And it's even worse if the route is technical. Right now those are great to measure power on flat ground, where surface is concrete or equivalent (road, sidewalk, track) and efficiency pretty high. Not so much if there is up or down hill, or if you go on trails / sand / grass ... where you efficiency (power created vs power used to propel) is lowered. The more that happens, the more the measured power will be wrongfully calculated. And it goes in both directions (underestimates the up, overestimates the down). There's also the question of power vs pace. Ray is a great athlete, though the power he got from his tests is higher than most people I know who use those (including me) even though we're faster. Efficiency and form are important, but we're talking more than 100W of difference... I'm skeptical to say the least.
@Charles Perrot-Minot I never ran on sand or grass but I agree on the fact that efficiency is lower compared to the road or a track, and it's not taken into account. I do not agree with the uphill though. It's quite individual, some people are as efficient uphill as on flat, or viceversa, or stronger (muscle composition, skills, etc etc). And it can also vary based on the gradient ofc. Also downhill, it's quite individual. And you can calculate running efficiency with power data and compare how much you lose or gain depending on the grade. That's why you should optimize your power targets based on the terrain (if I live and train in a hilly area and race on a flat I don't expect the power values to match, for an identical effort. Same for the opposite). But at the end of the day if the device is consistent that's great, and you can adjust accordingly. And about Ray's power data..you can't compare raw numbers unless you convert them in W/kg, otherwise it's useless. And yes, the difference can be that high (body composition and efficiency combined can make for huge differences).
@@Doireallyneedthis the issue is not the runner efficiency, but the calculated power. All those tools don't estimate up and down hills accurately. They aren't consistent in between the run types, and cannot be compared from one athlete to another as of now. Body type / composition / weight should not matter: the power should be comparable in between runners no matter the athlete. But it's not, at least not yet. So yes, comparing the raw data from mine to Ray isn't really accurate at all. But given I'm taking into account data from others as well (faster or slower, but the power is in relation to this, and they also have different bodies than mine). The estimated power Ray is getting still is weirdly high. Typically, getting 25% less estimated power on similar intervals. I'm weighting less than him, but not 25% less. And running about 15% faster. Also, everyone is less efficient in uphill, it's physics 😊.
This is a great video as always , can you tell us how stable is this beta ? I would love to start using this for my runs … Also are you still using Whoop ? If so can all this extra data can ported to the whoop app . Thanks
Seems reasonably stable to me, but I'm also using it on a secondary device (phone/watch), that isn't my daily driver. As for Whoop, you can't import it into there.
Running power meters seem stupid at their current state. The reason I got a cycling power meter was to quantify my efforts and assess my progress, which it does.... most of them to 1-2% accuracy. However, there is simply no way I will get a running power meter, since the data is merely an estimate. It would only be discouraging to see that it read lower power just because I was going into a headwind, uphill, on trails, or anything other conditions that the watch cannot (properly or fully) account for. Conversely, it would also be discouraging to see that I could not break power records that I set when aided by a tailwind or other metrics that the watch cannot fully account for.
Very cool to see. Unsurprisingly, Apple's first pass is not quite up to snuff, but doesn't seem like it is too far away from usability. It is rather disappointing to not have a running power standard, it seems like (with the exception of walking on the Apple) all of the devices agree proportionately. The rate of change is all close enough to give credence to using any device. Changing frame of reference for different devices isn't a deal breaker, but as we learn more about running power, we will likely be able to make suppositions based on absolute values and power to weight like we do with cycling. As of right now, that's impossible. It seems to me that we just need to pick a standard, whether it is closer to the Garmin/Polar model, or Stryd/Apple model... I don't think it matters from an athlete perspective which. I just want to be able to use my HRM tri with my Asics one day and my Stryd on my Nikes the next day and not have a complete chasm between those numbers. I expect some variation, just like cycling PMs, but those numbers are usable together. In terms of Apple, I am happy to see them offering up usable fitness modeling for their customers, but as the Apple Watch stands right now, I would never make that my primary fitness device (the fact that I don't use Apple products notwithstanding). The battery life alone is a dealbreaker, but the liability of a fairly delicate device to track my activities... I'd rather go with something specifically designed for sport. Garmin, Polar, Coros, etc., they are all going to destroy the Apple Watch at fitness tracking because that is what they are designed to do. You can't optimize for EVERYTHING. I think, on balance, most people who are bothered about running power are not going to be using Apple as their fitness tracker, but, I think what is compelling is that it might help to bridge more recreational athletes to become enthusiasts by offering those types of metrics. I suspect those folks would eventually branch out to a more fitness designed device. We all start with what we have until we grow and feel "limited" by what those devices offer. Perhaps Apple's foray into the "serious" fitness world will yield a fitness specific device, better optimized for the athlete, but I have to wonder... are they too late to the game? I don't see people dumping their flagships for the Apple offering for many generations. It will be interesting to see if there is a substantial ROI here for Apple... or do they enter the market with a fitness watch and quietly exit with no second generation? Only time will tell... Awesome video as always! Really loved seeing the power overlays!
Ahhh I love your Zwift videos, anyway enough of the niceties. I believe most of the sports metrics in the watches are gimmicks and a few scientists have pointed that out. It’s just like a car they have to give you some sort of add on or you wouldn’t buy a new one. So I was a die hard garmin gang guy but it wouldn’t allow me to answer text during a run on iPhone and the music aspect wasn’t all I thought it could be. Also I don’t want to run with my phone all the time but being a father I have to have a way to be contacted for emergencies. I also was having huge issues with the performance metrics. Telling me all my runs were tempo and I was either over training or just out of shape. Also the lactate threshold, V02 max and race prediction always had me slower than what I actually am. So I finally caved when I saw the new watch OS9 and bought a LTE Apple Watch 7. I can get calls on a run, it has plenty of battery life for a marathon if I want to run one and I can listen to many different music apps or podcasts without having to download anything. Does the battery life leave me underwhelmed, yes but it’s no longer a deal breaker for me. Because the Garmin was turning out to be an over priced sport watch that could give decent GPS coverage and easy to use button and interface and that was it.
The problem is any standard they pick is "wrong" because you cannot give accurate watts without a force/strain gauge. There was some shoes out there that tried to this but it was a failure (to expensive, not reliable, short life)
Eh I agree with many points except Apple in my experience IS the reliable wearable compared to Garmin. Garmin is the buggiest OS I’ve ever used and they roll out stuff for sale that is essentially in beta stage and use their customers as testers. Not cool.
@@trepidati0n533 I have ran with the stryd pod since the pod was released. I found that it closely correlated to my lactate threshold heart rate zones I set by the Joe Friel field test. I have also ran with the Coros watch and it was almost dead on with the Stryd pod. Which leads me to believing its more algorithm and less about tech in the pod.
@@MrMcGuck I understand that. I have had Stryd for 3+ years now. However, it still is an estimate of "power". Even when people use force treadmills and get actual power.....nobody has the answer if how much of that power is force YOU purposely generated vs spring effect of the leg. In cycling they understand this incredibly well....running they still don't really have a clue for a solid generalized form. So calling it "watts" is in name only.
No, not natively (Stryd has their own app). It just wouldn’t be worth it, at least in terms of if they did that, they’d more likely do cycling power too/first.
It isn't necessarily wrong for Apple to indicate 0W when you are walking because it is not trying to measure your power when walking. In fact, I don't think power wattage is measured during walking type workouts. It could be the case that Apple has determined that at certain walking pace levels that its algorithm is inaccurate so it simply doesn't report it. Not reporting it would be missing data and therefore null.
I’m sure you realize that Stryd and Apple Watch have updated their app. They are all giddy as hell over there on the Stryd channel. Just makes it more confusing for me.
Yup, but that's their Stryd app. I'm using the native Apple Watch app with native Apple Watch running power. For Stryd connectivity, I used Garmin to record the Stryd with a Connect IQ data field.
Probably not. They didn’t reach out with a review unit, and in this case, I’d struggle to see spending my own money on a product I’d likely not use again, nor one which would do well view-wise. :/
How can all these companies know whether I am running in deep mud or even snow with my heavy trail shoes or on dry condition with back wind and my lightest competition shoes? Running power is questionable unless something like a powermeter in the sole is available!
I use a Stryd powermeter right now. The software currently has a robust system for tagging conditions after the run. It will be interesting to see if companies will be able to use customer datasets to learn the differences in how our movement in different conditions effects the device enough that future models will be able to tell what the surface is like without insole censors.
@@sillydillybar Things will definitely evolve, but estimating power from movement of the feet can never be as accurate as a real measurement of force over time, which afaik doesn't exist yet for running.
Very helpful video, it is only positive that there are mainstream companies invest in sports tech, it will only bring benefits to consumers. Apple needs to work on their battery though, big no-no. Enjoy our greek sun and the natural light!
Thanks! Indeed, I think the battery may become a concern, depending on their target audience. I guess that's the biggie. People have been doing 70.3's for years with the Apple Watch in limited fashion (upwards of 5-6hrs), but I can see from my triathlon yesterday (only an hour), that battery life was dramatically worse than I expected. Which, is totally normal for a beta.
Ok, I've been running with Garmin power and i don't need anyone to tell me that Garmin Power is waaaaaaaay off!!!!!! At an 8:30 pace at 167 lbs,on flat pavement I'm averaging 349 Watts!!!! You're way wrong Garmin. Please fix it. Maybe pay strydr for their power algorithm and let's get it done right.
Imho Apple is really bad at calculating effort and fitness values in hilly terrain. I had their VO2max value fluctuate downwards dramatically on hill runs in a way I have never seen on a Garmin
Technically Apple is right... if you aren't running your run power is zero. It's a bit like your bike power meter saying your cycling power is zero when walking...
No, that’s not at all the same. Your cycling power meter says zero only if your legs aren’t moving (coasting down a hill, stopped pedaling, etc). Anytime your legs are moving, your power meter is going to show a value. Apple is wrong here, either because they can’t calculate the power value from wrist (others can just fine), because they haven’t done it yet, or because they decided against it. Either way, putting zero when making forward progress is fundamentally incorrect. Even the most disagreeing of running power meter companies at least agree upon that.
@@Dcrainmaker thanks for the reply, the example was walking (as in beside the bike up a hill that's too steep, so still making forward progress but zero "cycling" power). I was just wondering if Apple have a simple frequency or speed required for the beta as a threshold, and their algorithm spits out zero if you don't meet it. If it is a software limitation it might get better as it comes closer to release. Thanks for the info regarding what's agreed on though, not my field. Excellent video, dont let the comment make you think I dont appreciate your hard work 👍
Can the watches display normalised power…….average power is fairly useless? Given there is no agreed standard, it seems fairly useless as we can’t even define what the numbers mean.
Thanks for doing this. It will be interesting to see how much this changes between the dev betas, the public betas and the final release.
Indeed, looking forward to seeing its progression, and perhaps as well, whether or not we get newer sports-focused hardware for this fall!
Excellent as always, Ray. The new running dynamics are definitely intriguing, even as I recently purchased the Garmin 955 standard version. Love the watch, but missing the AW7 functionality (which comes in handy as an RN in a hospital). Really hoping to see more with Apple’s direction (battery life, etc.) to determine if I’ll be making another change come the fall. With the series 8, I think minimum 3 days battery life could be a game changer for many of us.
Just wish I could know their plans before the return period for the 955! 🤣
Indeed, I think the more I use these features (running power, and now triathlon), the more I suspect we'll see some shift in focus on hardware from Apple. They honestly kinda have to. Especially around wet finger-type scenarios. The battery is important, but usability during a triathlon was difficult in terms of interactions (fine if you left it alone). And then similarly, I had plenty of usability issues while running intervals in Greece with hot sweaty weather.
@@Dcrainmaker hoping for and looking forward to a review of your triathlon experience with the new features!
This is fantastic since I lost my Stryd pod a few weeks ago. As always, a fantastic detailed and very useful review. Can't wait for this update in a few weeks.
Thank you for another helpful and informative video! 👌🏻
Thanks!!!
Curios if you can add stryd foot pod as a power meter/ or foot pod, and it will use power from stryd. Not that this is necessary, as I use the stryd app anyways on the Apple Watch. Just curious if this is possible.
Were the Apple Watches, 0 heart rate sections included or excluded in the average power for the workout?
Just wondering ... if you want to use Apple Watch for power does it actually calculate a CP/rFTP within their system or are there any running zones?
I wonder if you would’ve kept your hands up like you were running while you were doing your walking if it would’ve recorded power output
If you only going to wear your watch some time during some run and not always wear it on daily basis too, is it still make sense to get a smartest h at all when all the data wont be sccurate?
What was the numerical difference in average power between the various devices?
Really enjoyed this review as I use running power with Garmin + Stryd.
Thanks!!!
Nice one! We really need running power to be standardized, so that values are comparable and usable.
Hopefully, Strava will offer graphs for running power like we have with cadence and all at some point.
Are these features available on Apple Watch Series 5 running watch os 9 ?
Interesting! Is there any way to get the automatic “CP” in Apple Watch such as in Stryd?
Thanks for this review Ray! Do you think that down the road Garmin would provide wrist based power metrics ? (Vs an other dongle/straps)
Bedank voor de gedetailleerde video , is er nu ook in de instellingen bij auto pauze workout voor hiking en walking toegevoegd?
Great update but no for share file gpx data
Very nice work! Are you in Zante? Will you go to Corfu too? I would love to meet you!
Zante was great! Sadly already back home in Amsterdam, no Corfu trip this time around!
Will watchOS 9 upload to Strava in the beta?
Great stuff. Thank you. I’m still a STRYD guy as I think power measured by foot energy exertion is better for me. Just my opinion. Look forward to seeing if they do any adjustments until final release.
It would be great to see the same comparison for vertical oscillation and gct.
Yup, I initially had it in the video, but cut it out in editing as it was really wordy and clunky. But, you can view the written equivalent here: www.dcrainmaker.com/2022/06/running-power-comparison-garmin-stryd-polar-coros.html
Shame it's only out from Series 6 and above, even the SE got it. I do think it's because the always on sensors (barometer, altimeter) Just bought a used Series 5...unlucky...
Just hope that the hearth rate zones will show up during cycling too.
Oh really? I was hoping to test it on my Mrs S4. Just boils down to money really! watchOS8 really killed both my S3 battery life, I think I will stick to the Forerunner 55 now
@@mvp_kryptonite might going to update if the beta 2 comes out today I really want to try out heart rate zones, and see if they are available for cycling
You can use calories burned in a given amount of time to estimate your power output. For a nice 2 mile run in 17 minutes Garmin says i averaged 349 watts and burned 217 calories. If i used the calories burned in 17 minutes to estimate my average watts, it comes to around 212 watts. My weight is around 167 lbs or so. 212 is way closer to the same watts i would do on the bike with that same effort 👍
Nice Video! Noticed you said you were using the 255 for the Garmin portion of this test. Has that been your "daily driver" since the release? Thanks!
Nah, probably leaning more towards FR955. I used the FR255 mainly because it's the same price as the Apple Watch Series 7.
Using Stryd for 3 years, I can tell you its only useful for measuring distance (if calibrated correctly for the given shoes).
The uphill efforts really underestimated, when your hr goes to threshold and the power is just slightly increasing you know something is odd (using hr strap ofc)
Fully agree with that. Useful for instant pace too. Many people wrongfully believe that Stryd does not need calibration. Auto calibration (what Stryd does out of the box by using GPS distance) defeats the purpose of having a foot pod.
Weird, I never had that issue. If running uphill at threshold power its reflected by hr too for me. What do you mean by slightly?
@@Doireallyneedthis he probably means the increase in measured power doesn't reflect the actual increase in effort (hence actual power). And it's even worse if the route is technical.
Right now those are great to measure power on flat ground, where surface is concrete or equivalent (road, sidewalk, track) and efficiency pretty high. Not so much if there is up or down hill, or if you go on trails / sand / grass ... where you efficiency (power created vs power used to propel) is lowered. The more that happens, the more the measured power will be wrongfully calculated. And it goes in both directions (underestimates the up, overestimates the down).
There's also the question of power vs pace. Ray is a great athlete, though the power he got from his tests is higher than most people I know who use those (including me) even though we're faster. Efficiency and form are important, but we're talking more than 100W of difference... I'm skeptical to say the least.
@Charles Perrot-Minot I never ran on sand or grass but I agree on the fact that efficiency is lower compared to the road or a track, and it's not taken into account.
I do not agree with the uphill though. It's quite individual, some people are as efficient uphill as on flat, or viceversa, or stronger (muscle composition, skills, etc etc). And it can also vary based on the gradient ofc. Also downhill, it's quite individual. And you can calculate running efficiency with power data and compare how much you lose or gain depending on the grade. That's why you should optimize your power targets based on the terrain (if I live and train in a hilly area and race on a flat I don't expect the power values to match, for an identical effort. Same for the opposite). But at the end of the day if the device is consistent that's great, and you can adjust accordingly.
And about Ray's power data..you can't compare raw numbers unless you convert them in W/kg, otherwise it's useless. And yes, the difference can be that high (body composition and efficiency combined can make for huge differences).
@@Doireallyneedthis the issue is not the runner efficiency, but the calculated power. All those tools don't estimate up and down hills accurately. They aren't consistent in between the run types, and cannot be compared from one athlete to another as of now. Body type / composition / weight should not matter: the power should be comparable in between runners no matter the athlete. But it's not, at least not yet.
So yes, comparing the raw data from mine to Ray isn't really accurate at all. But given I'm taking into account data from others as well (faster or slower, but the power is in relation to this, and they also have different bodies than mine). The estimated power Ray is getting still is weirdly high. Typically, getting 25% less estimated power on similar intervals. I'm weighting less than him, but not 25% less. And running about 15% faster.
Also, everyone is less efficient in uphill, it's physics 😊.
Thanks for the video. Please, for cycling, are any other metrics in Watch OS 9?
Nothing new that I’ve seen.
@@Dcrainmaker thank you !
This is a great video as always , can you tell us how stable is this beta ? I would love to start using this for my runs … Also are you still using Whoop ? If so can all this extra data can ported to the whoop app .
Thanks
Seems reasonably stable to me, but I'm also using it on a secondary device (phone/watch), that isn't my daily driver. As for Whoop, you can't import it into there.
@@Dcrainmaker which watch do you daily drive?
How is Greece treating you? You got lucky with the heat as it's still cool for a Greek summer.
Amazing! And indeed, the weather was actually perfect!
Ray, that 40 min run that apple says you average in the mid 300s watts seems more around 237 watts based on the calories used during the run
Running power meters seem stupid at their current state.
The reason I got a cycling power meter was to quantify my efforts and assess my progress, which it does.... most of them to 1-2% accuracy. However, there is simply no way I will get a running power meter, since the data is merely an estimate. It would only be discouraging to see that it read lower power just because I was going into a headwind, uphill, on trails, or anything other conditions that the watch cannot (properly or fully) account for. Conversely, it would also be discouraging to see that I could not break power records that I set when aided by a tailwind or other metrics that the watch cannot fully account for.
I agree, completely useless if they don't account for different surfaces
First rule of fight club is that Tim Cook doesn't talk about fight club. 🍎
Anyone know if it is possible for apple watch power / vertical oscillation stats to be exported into Strava?
Can't seem to see this on my Watch Series 5 with the Beta. Is there any other specific setup that needs to be done first?
It is no beta it is development version
ahhh here we go
Very cool to see. Unsurprisingly, Apple's first pass is not quite up to snuff, but doesn't seem like it is too far away from usability. It is rather disappointing to not have a running power standard, it seems like (with the exception of walking on the Apple) all of the devices agree proportionately. The rate of change is all close enough to give credence to using any device. Changing frame of reference for different devices isn't a deal breaker, but as we learn more about running power, we will likely be able to make suppositions based on absolute values and power to weight like we do with cycling. As of right now, that's impossible. It seems to me that we just need to pick a standard, whether it is closer to the Garmin/Polar model, or Stryd/Apple model... I don't think it matters from an athlete perspective which. I just want to be able to use my HRM tri with my Asics one day and my Stryd on my Nikes the next day and not have a complete chasm between those numbers. I expect some variation, just like cycling PMs, but those numbers are usable together.
In terms of Apple, I am happy to see them offering up usable fitness modeling for their customers, but as the Apple Watch stands right now, I would never make that my primary fitness device (the fact that I don't use Apple products notwithstanding). The battery life alone is a dealbreaker, but the liability of a fairly delicate device to track my activities... I'd rather go with something specifically designed for sport. Garmin, Polar, Coros, etc., they are all going to destroy the Apple Watch at fitness tracking because that is what they are designed to do. You can't optimize for EVERYTHING. I think, on balance, most people who are bothered about running power are not going to be using Apple as their fitness tracker, but, I think what is compelling is that it might help to bridge more recreational athletes to become enthusiasts by offering those types of metrics. I suspect those folks would eventually branch out to a more fitness designed device. We all start with what we have until we grow and feel "limited" by what those devices offer.
Perhaps Apple's foray into the "serious" fitness world will yield a fitness specific device, better optimized for the athlete, but I have to wonder... are they too late to the game? I don't see people dumping their flagships for the Apple offering for many generations. It will be interesting to see if there is a substantial ROI here for Apple... or do they enter the market with a fitness watch and quietly exit with no second generation? Only time will tell...
Awesome video as always! Really loved seeing the power overlays!
Ahhh I love your Zwift videos, anyway enough of the niceties. I believe most of the sports metrics in the watches are gimmicks and a few scientists have pointed that out. It’s just like a car they have to give you some sort of add on or you wouldn’t buy a new one.
So I was a die hard garmin gang guy but it wouldn’t allow me to answer text during a run on iPhone and the music aspect wasn’t all I thought it could be. Also I don’t want to run with my phone all the time but being a father I have to have a way to be contacted for emergencies. I also was having huge issues with the performance metrics. Telling me all my runs were tempo and I was either over training or just out of shape. Also the lactate threshold, V02 max and race prediction always had me slower than what I actually am.
So I finally caved when I saw the new watch OS9 and bought a LTE Apple Watch 7. I can get calls on a run, it has plenty of battery life for a marathon if I want to run one and I can listen to many different music apps or podcasts without having to download anything. Does the battery life leave me underwhelmed, yes but it’s no longer a deal breaker for me. Because the Garmin was turning out to be an over priced sport watch that could give decent GPS coverage and easy to use button and interface and that was it.
The problem is any standard they pick is "wrong" because you cannot give accurate watts without a force/strain gauge. There was some shoes out there that tried to this but it was a failure (to expensive, not reliable, short life)
Eh I agree with many points except Apple in my experience IS the reliable wearable compared to Garmin. Garmin is the buggiest OS I’ve ever used and they roll out stuff for sale that is essentially in beta stage and use their customers as testers. Not cool.
@@trepidati0n533 I have ran with the stryd pod since the pod was released. I found that it closely correlated to my lactate threshold heart rate zones I set by the Joe Friel field test. I have also ran with the Coros watch and it was almost dead on with the Stryd pod. Which leads me to believing its more algorithm and less about tech in the pod.
@@MrMcGuck I understand that. I have had Stryd for 3+ years now. However, it still is an estimate of "power". Even when people use force treadmills and get actual power.....nobody has the answer if how much of that power is force YOU purposely generated vs spring effect of the leg. In cycling they understand this incredibly well....running they still don't really have a clue for a solid generalized form. So calling it "watts" is in name only.
Could you see apple having the ability to pair with stryd?
No, not natively (Stryd has their own app). It just wouldn’t be worth it, at least in terms of if they did that, they’d more likely do cycling power too/first.
It isn't necessarily wrong for Apple to indicate 0W when you are walking because it is not trying to measure your power when walking. In fact, I don't think power wattage is measured during walking type workouts. It could be the case that Apple has determined that at certain walking pace levels that its algorithm is inaccurate so it simply doesn't report it. Not reporting it would be missing data and therefore null.
Thank u for sharing
I’m sure you realize that Stryd and Apple Watch have updated their app. They are all giddy as hell over there on the Stryd channel. Just makes it more confusing for me.
Yup, but that's their Stryd app. I'm using the native Apple Watch app with native Apple Watch running power. For Stryd connectivity, I used Garmin to record the Stryd with a Connect IQ data field.
Can we expect a review of Insta360 ONE RS any time soon? 😃
Probably not. They didn’t reach out with a review unit, and in this case, I’d struggle to see spending my own money on a product I’d likely not use again, nor one which would do well view-wise. :/
I just want a simple way to set hr zones with chest strap and really dont need the other 5000 metrics
so nice my friend
Guess you could argue that if you are walking your "Running" power is zero because you aren't running!
Great video again, would you ever make a video about how you combine your different sports in your training?
I would say running power should be zero when not running. 😬
How can all these companies know whether I am running in deep mud or even snow with my heavy trail shoes or on dry condition with back wind and my lightest competition shoes? Running power is questionable unless something like a powermeter in the sole is available!
I use a Stryd powermeter right now. The software currently has a robust system for tagging conditions after the run. It will be interesting to see if companies will be able to use customer datasets to learn the differences in how our movement in different conditions effects the device enough that future models will be able to tell what the surface is like without insole censors.
@@sillydillybar Things will definitely evolve, but estimating power from movement of the feet can never be as accurate as a real measurement of force over time, which afaik doesn't exist yet for running.
Great thanks. I wish it would work for cycling. that would save a fortune on power meters.
Now if Apple would only be able to get a grip on the other power metric they never really were able to keep up with - battery power.
Very helpful video, it is only positive that there are mainstream companies invest in sports tech, it will only bring benefits to consumers. Apple needs to work on their battery though, big no-no. Enjoy our greek sun and the natural light!
Thanks! Indeed, I think the battery may become a concern, depending on their target audience. I guess that's the biggie. People have been doing 70.3's for years with the Apple Watch in limited fashion (upwards of 5-6hrs), but I can see from my triathlon yesterday (only an hour), that battery life was dramatically worse than I expected. Which, is totally normal for a beta.
Nice video. 👍 are you in Spain, Italy or Greece? 😁
Ok, I've been running with Garmin power and i don't need anyone to tell me that Garmin Power is waaaaaaaay off!!!!!! At an 8:30 pace at 167 lbs,on flat pavement I'm averaging 349 Watts!!!! You're way wrong Garmin. Please fix it. Maybe pay strydr for their power algorithm and let's get it done right.
Wow after all that Apple still dominates lol
Imho Apple is really bad at calculating effort and fitness values in hilly terrain. I had their VO2max value fluctuate downwards dramatically on hill runs in a way I have never seen on a Garmin
Dude... What's going on with that left arm/hand while running ;-);-);-)
LOL
Technically Apple is right... if you aren't running your run power is zero. It's a bit like your bike power meter saying your cycling power is zero when walking...
No, that’s not at all the same. Your cycling power meter says zero only if your legs aren’t moving (coasting down a hill, stopped pedaling, etc). Anytime your legs are moving, your power meter is going to show a value. Apple is wrong here, either because they can’t calculate the power value from wrist (others can just fine), because they haven’t done it yet, or because they decided against it. Either way, putting zero when making forward progress is fundamentally incorrect. Even the most disagreeing of running power meter companies at least agree upon that.
@@Dcrainmaker thanks for the reply, the example was walking (as in beside the bike up a hill that's too steep, so still making forward progress but zero "cycling" power). I was just wondering if Apple have a simple frequency or speed required for the beta as a threshold, and their algorithm spits out zero if you don't meet it. If it is a software limitation it might get better as it comes closer to release. Thanks for the info regarding what's agreed on though, not my field. Excellent video, dont let the comment make you think I dont appreciate your hard work 👍
Should probably say "cadence" rather than frequency?
Can the watches display normalised power…….average power is fairly useless? Given there is no agreed standard, it seems fairly useless as we can’t even define what the numbers mean.
Maybe I missed this, but is there no running power standard? 😂😂
To be fair to Apple. When you measure Running power. And you walk. You’re not running. 😁
If it is "running" power it should be 0 when you walk!
😎🤟🏼🤝
Habla más despacio