SHOULD YOU MAKE THE MOVE TO MAURTEN®?

All of us in the Endurance world look for that little extra edge as well as the essentials of nutrition. In 2021 a little known company out of Sweden launched a new form of energy gel and fast forwards to 2023 and that brand is one of the biggest in the world of endurance nutrition. Maurten® is currently making an estimated £1mn a week and projected to hit annual reviews of £27.5mn.1 With its global visibility bolstered within the endurance market due to it being a key nutrition sponsor of Ironman® and marathons (such as Berlin) then should this be your brand of choice for carb gels and drinks?

Image source: www.reins.cc

.

The history of the brand & its science

Olof Sköld brothers wife sisters husband (;-)) was called Mårten (Maurten®) and wanted to create a better sports drink, so he and Olof Sköld come up with the use of a pharma based delivery technology of sodium alginate + pectin.2 From this others (Karl Sköld, Henrik Wingstrand and Sven Mårten Fryknäs are listed as co-founders) where brought on board and with the help of the academics Martin Ahnoff and Anna STRÖM helped develop, patent and bring to market Maurten AB and its carb gel and drink2 (Note: Maurten AB is a subsidiary of Laminaria Group AB, which holds all the IP for Maurten from April 2016).

At this time of launch no public data other than anecdotal evidence from athlete testimonials was available to demonstrate efficacy such as well controlled research that was peer reviewed studies.

.

The Kiphoge effect

One of the smartest moves was the approach of Maurten® to work with Professor Yannis Pitsiladis on the ‘Breaking2’ project, where World and Olympic gold medalist runner Elliud Kiphoge would attempt to break the 2 hour barrier in the marathon. In addition, to their work with Kenenisa Bekele for the 2016 Berlin marathon and the ‘development of the real world’ application of the Gel technology (and likely the result that got them in the door for Breaking2), it was the global recognition from the ‘Sub2’ event in 2017 propelled them onto the world stage. Maurten® was now recognised as an “ultra” premium, science-based, endurance product and brand.

Image Source: https://www.holabirdsports.com/pages/maurten

In addition to the success from Sub2, some nice marketing with unbranded gels that suggesting athletes want to use Maurten® even if sponsored by other endurance product brands made some headlines. The result of this innovative marketing was in effect a “No ‘independent’ proof before promises” approach that on the back of athlete testimonials propelled Maurten® from a regional brand to the multi-million £ global brand we recognise today.

.

A Closer look at the “REAL” science

It’s a true story of low tech gorilla marketing against the brand led traditions in the endurance market. It also takes a page out of the designer clothing market that it’s not just about the cost of goods but about developing true brand value. Beyond the food marketing and product promotion aka “the hype”, what does the REAL science say about these products? As the founders of Maurten® would say, is their product a leap in science that has not changed that much from the 1960’s?

Well let’s take a look at the published evidence using the following search terms in Pubmed:

[Search terms: Sodium AND Alginate AND Hydrogel AND carbohydrate]

[Limits: Clinical trial, Meta-analysis, Review, Systematic review]

Table 1. Summary of Maurten® HydroGel studies

Following a search using the above inclusion / exclusion criteria and then reading over each related paper we find there are 11 published peer review studies and in addition we note 1 abstract that was surplus to the search above. So let’s take a dive into the outcomes of these studies as summarised in the table above.

What did the evidence tell us?

We have 10 papers (excluding the review paper) that are relevant to the use of the Maurten® Hydrogel. Of these we should really look at 3 key areas.

1. Does Hydrogel enhance performance above that of a none-gel forming carb drink?

2. Does HydroGel increase Carb oxidation, decrease use of stored carbs or enhance fat use?

3. Does Hydrogel result in less GI issues?

Key area 1Performance enhance: Of the 10 relevant papers 5 do not contain any assessment of the effects of HydroGel on physical performance. Of these remaining 5 only 1 study (Rowe et al 2022) demonstrates any performance benefit.

Summary 1: So on the face of it we can conclude that Maurten Hydrogel on the basis of the performance tests within these studies as a general view is no better that carbohydrate formulations that don’t form a gel following ingestion. 

Key Area 2 – Spares glycogen (stored carbs): Of the 10 studies 9 measured either rates of CHO/Fat oxidation and or Endogenous use of Carbs. Of these 2 demonstrated a decrease in endogenous oxidation of carbs (burning stored carbs for energy) and 7 showed no difference in whole body oxidation rates.

Summary 2: So whilst we see some evidence that Hydrogel can in certain exercise conditions spare muscle glycogen, which may enhance performance later in competition, that data is weak. 

Key area 3: – Less GI issues: Finally, we should consider one of the main issues faced by many an endurance athlete and especially those involved in long course triathlon. Of the 10 studies, 8 measure Gastrointestinal (GI) stress / discomfort to some degree. Of the 8 studies measuring GI stress, 2 showed increased discomfort and 2 showing less from Hydrogel and the others no difference.

Summary 3: So we can conclude on balance there are based on the study designs no consistent benefits on GI complaints that what we see using none-gel forming carbohydrate sources. 

.

Conclusions: Should you hang your hat with Maurten®

At this point all we can really say from the published research (as reviewed in this blog) does not demonstrate any consistent performance, biochemical nor gastrointestinal comfort benefits against carb matched alternatives. There are a number of issues to consider in drawing such a conclusion:

  1. Not all studies use the same exercise protocol or performance tests
  2. The type of exercise (run, cycle) and its duration is not the same
  3. Dietary controls and fitness of the participants are different
  4. Some of the chemical/physiological techniques used to assess some of the proposed benefits differ between papers. 

The results of such methodological difference mean we don’t see consistency in the data and what we are likely to see is Maurten® cherry picking the data supporting its views and distractors or business competitors the opposite. 

My own view is I am on neither side here. The fact is the difference between conventional 2:1 carb products (none-gel forming) vs. Hydrogels are neither here no there…based on the published peer reviewed evidence. The choice of what to go for training and race day are really one of personal preference and in this case likely also one of price point. 

What Maurten® need to do going forwards its to invest in relevant study designs that replicate what endurance and indeed ultra-endurance athletes need for a marathon and or long distance triathlon. To date we really don’t have that evidence. 

I hope you find this assessment of use and we did contact Maurten® science team who kindly provided comment in relation to the available studies before we wrote this review. 

NOTE: We do see an addition 4 references in the published literature that are of interest but do not fall within the scope of the article but will include in reference list to ensure completeness of the review. Interesting is the publication of Leiper et al that seems to pre-date the Maurten® products (Interesting from a novelty standpoint).

.

References/Sources

  1. New energy drinks – without all the nasties (7th October 2023) Accessed online 17th October 2023 at: https://www.ft.com/content/d6f1d56d-ca86-43df-b14c-de076c76cc91
  2. The Entrepreneurs Maurten (25th September 2019) Episode 415. Accessed online 17th October 2023 at: https://monocle.com/radio/shows/the-entrepreneurs/415/
  3. Pettersson S, Edin F, Bakkman L, McGawley K. Effects of supplementing with an 18% carbohydrate-hydrogel drink versus a placebo during whole-body exercise in -5 °C with elite cross-country ski athletes: a crossover study. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2019 Oct 26;16(1):46. doi: 10.1186/s12970-019-0317-4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31655603/
  4. Marciani L , Lopez-Sanchez P , Pettersson S , Hoad C , Abrehart N , Ahnoff M , Ström A . Alginate and HM-pectin in sports-drink give rise to intra-gastric gelation in vivo. Food Funct. 2019 Dec 11;10(12):7892-7899. doi: 10.1039/c9fo01617a. PMID: 31793602. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31793602/
  5. McCubbin AJ, Zhu A, Gaskell SK, Costa RJS. Hydrogel Carbohydrate-Electrolyte Beverage Does Not Improve Glucose Availability, Substrate Oxidation, Gastrointestinal Symptoms or Exercise Performance, Compared With a Concentration and Nutrient-Matched Placebo. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2020 Jan 1;30(1):25-33. doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.2019-0090. https://tinyurl.com/yckezb2f
  6. Barber JFP, Thomas J, Narang B, Hengist A, Betts JA, Wallis GA, Gonzalez JT. Pectin-Alginate Does Not Further Enhance Exogenous Carbohydrate Oxidation in Running. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020 Jun;52(6):1376-1384. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002262. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31977640/
  7. Pettersson S, Ahnoff M, Edin F, Lingström P, Simark Mattsson C, Andersson-Hall U. A Hydrogel Drink With High Fructose Content Generates Higher Exogenous Carbohydrate Oxidation and Lower Dental Biofilm pH Compared to Two Other, Commercially Available, Carbohydrate Sports Drinks. Front Nutr. 2020 Jun 12;7:88. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2020.00088. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7303329/
  8. Mears SA, Worley J, Mason GS, Hulston CJ, James LJ. Addition of sodium alginate and pectin to a carbohydrate-electrolyte solution does not influence substrate oxidation, gastrointestinal comfort, or cycling performance. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020 Jun;45(6):675-678. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2019-0802. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31967853/ 
  9. Sutehall S, Galloway SDR, Bosch A, Pitsiladis Y. Addition of an Alginate Hydrogel to a Carbohydrate Beverage Enhances Gastric Emptying. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020 Aug;52(8):1785-1792. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002301. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32079920/
  10. King AJ, Rowe JT, Burke LM. Carbohydrate Hydrogel Products Do Not Improve Performance or Gastrointestinal Distress During Moderate-Intensity Endurance Exercise. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2020 Sep 1;30(5):305-314. doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.2020-0102. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32707564/
  11. Flood TR, Montanari S, Wicks M, Blanchard J, Sharp H, Taylor L, Kuennen MR, Lee BJ. Addition of pectin-alginate to a carbohydrate beverage does not maintain gastrointestinal barrier function during exercise in hot-humid conditions better than carbohydrate ingestion alone. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020 Oct;45(10):1145-1155. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2020-0118. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32365303/
  12. Sutehall S, Muniz-Pardos B, Bosch AN, Galloway SD, Pitsiladis Y. The Impact of Sodium Alginate Hydrogel on Exogenous Glucose Oxidation Rate and Gastrointestinal Comfort in Well-Trained Runners. Front Nutr. 2022 Jan 20;8:810041. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2021.810041. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8811475/
  13. Rowe JT, King RFGJ, King AJ, Morrison DJ, Preston T, Wilson OJ, O’Hara JP. Glucose and Fructose Hydrogel Enhances Running Performance, Exogenous Carbohydrate Oxidation, and Gastrointestinal Tolerance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2022 Jan 1;54(1):129-140. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002764. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34334720/

Other Studies of Note

Leiper JB, Aulin KP, Söderlund K. Improved gastric emptying rate in humans of a unique glucose polymer with gel-forming properties. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2000 Nov;35(11):1143-9. doi: 10.1080/003655200750056600.

Lopez-Sanchez P, Martinez-Sanz M, Bonilla MR, Wang D, Gilbert EP, Stokes JR, Gidley MJ. Cellulose-pectin composite hydrogels: Intermolecular interactions and material properties depend on order of assembly. Carbohydr Polym. 2017 Apr 15;162:71-81. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.01.049. 

Lopez-Sanchez P, Fredriksson N, Larsson A, Altskar A, Strom A. High sugar content impacts microstructure, mechanics and release of calciumalginate Gels. 2018; 84: 26-33. Doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.05.029

Lopez-Sanchez P, Assifaoui A, Cousin F, Moser J, Bonilla MR, Ström A. Impact of Glucose on the Nanostructure and Mechanical Properties of Calcium-Alginate Hydrogels. Gels. 2022 Jan 22;8(2):71. doi: 10.3390/gels8020071. 

Challenge Salou 2019

Early season starter…

After a shit past 2 years with broken back then broken clavicle destroying the seasons it was good to get back to racing after a long recovery and winters training.

The goal was to qualify for the Challenge Championship and to play it safe on the efforts to not blow up. So some limits for the bike and run where put in place pre-event and other than a big mechanical I should have a safe ride into the top 5 to secure a place come June.

Fig 1. One the beach

Fig 1. On the beach

PRE-RACE

We had an apartment close to the race start and that made for an easy time getting to and from registration and the event. It’s the key to a de-stressed race and if you can do it the closer to the race start the better. Post the bike unpack had a few issues with the stem but the mechanic at the expo fixed no problem (panic over). I was out a few days before the race and had some time to check out the road conditions and some parts of the course. However, come the race briefing it was all getting a bit messy with a change in the bike course (no 3 laps rather than 4) from the previous year the explanation at the briefing was a joke. No one had a clue what was going on or how it was all going to run on the day. Despite the concern the bike course on the day was pretty clear.

The day before the race the was to be an early morning organised swim of the course. However, the water was so choppy it was cancelled as they could not get the canoes out or to stay upright. The discussion was possible swim cancellation come race morning. At the race briefing we where told we would be informed by email over night or on the morning of the race.

RACE-DAY

The race start was 8.20am (that’s right a sleep in) so we set the alarm for 6.20 to get some food in and then to make our way to the race start. The transition was nicely organised and lots of space to get in and have a good check over the bikes and to look over race bags. Post bike check there was time to have a good warm-up running around the car park. However, one issue is very few toilets. Although I didn’t need them one of the guys I was sharing with did and it was a big wait, so anyone thinking of doing the event build this into your morning schedule.

8.10am and made my way to the AG start. The water did not look inviting and was very choppy. I though the start would have been a wave start so it was a shock when all athletes entered the water in one go.

THE SWIM [Time 36:48]

The start of the swim ended up a real push up there was the waves to contend with and then had my hat and goggles pulled of (the 1st for me). However, you just have to get on with it and plough on (advice – start on the left of the pack and get close to the right of the AG pen before the start as you get moved through a small gate down towards the water before the gun).

Fig 1. Out of the mixer...

Fig 2. Out of the mixer less a cap but at least I managed to get goggles back on.

 

The swim was the shape of the letter ‘P’ and as you where due to tune back on yourself it was very very difficult to see the last buoy and this resulted on a pack of about 30-40 athletes swimming straight to the shore. The result would be at least curing of 300m from the swim. I email challenge about this and will see what happened to these athletes. However, for me I could not take the risk of a DQ and thus had to sit up in the water to spot the one but last buoy (more lost time). I found it but was hard swimming the opposite way from the pack heading to the beach.

Reaching the beach we could hear a whistle as athletes where getting out of the water up and down the sea front due to the swell.

Once up onto the beach I could see 35 mins had passed a good 6 mins of planned swim and a time that’s about a recovery swim for me. So was a bit stressed but had to stick to the bike plan and just refocused back in T1. Through transition was fine and out onto the bike.

THE BIKE  [Time 2:29:39]

The idea was to hold 240-250w (np) over the whole bike so that I could run a low 1.20 Half marathon. This should have given me a 2hr 18min (ish) but was based on the old course and average wind conditions. The course was very windy with some long drags up the dual carriageway. Anyway stuck to the plan irrespective of the time with a slight mechanical being the only eventful negative (chain came off about 1min to slip back on).

 

Fig 3. Getting ready for the transition.

Fig 3. Getting ready for the transition.

 

Desperate for a pee on the last lap of the bike but just could not go and given the deficit was not going to stop. By the run it wore off so was the right choice to push on.

The final watts where spot on 245w and legs felt fine defiantly undercooked, but that was the plan and was then hoping for a solid run.

THE RUN  [Time 1:22:18]

It was starting to pick up in temp and the run was a 3 loop course with headwind on the way out. But felt strong and dialed into 3.50/km pace early on with only a few sloppy km’s when dodging the other runners out on course. Had a good run and could have pushed much more but the goal was no risks and snag a top 5 qualifying spot.

Fig 4. Getting hot on the run.

Fig 4. Getting hot on the run.

Crossing the line felt like I had lots in me and that was a great feeling. Grabbed the medal and back to apartment for shower and check my results before heading back to watch my flatmates finish out the day.

POST RACE  [Overall Time 4:34:46]

Once back I could see I was second in AG and that meant the job was done without too much damage so I could be soon back into training.

Fig 5. Over the line time to chill

Fig 5. Over the line time to chill

Overall a good race and well organised although the race briefing could have been done much better. Would defiantly advise getting out there a few days before the even to try out some of the bike course. Would also advise if possible (for us it was not) to also try out the swim. If it’s choppy given the mass start it can be a real washing machine at the start, but if you expect it you can position yourself at the start in a good position.

Fig 6. Thanks for the memories

Fig 6. Thanks for the memories

 

Next stop ‘The Championship’ and to open up full effort on the bike and run…

 

Stryd® – Running with power!

There is great potential for power as a running metric but a number of issues to consider before applying it in everyday training.

 

Price: $199 (circa £159.90)

Purpose: Power monitor for running

Website: www.stryd.com [Stry Gen II ‘FOOT POD’]

Summary –      Pros:    Accurate, repeatable, syncs with training peaks /    Cons:  Lack of ability to select specific metrics in IQ stryd watch app / No effective integration of run-power into WKO4

The use of power as a metric for measuring the impact of training and as a tool for optimising performance has revolutionised cycling. However, beyond real time GPS little has changed beyond measuring heart rate from the late 70s and early 80s. This may just have changed with the introduction of power measurement for runners. One version of power meters for running making the headlines has been ‘Stryd®’. I have being playing about with the Stryd over the past few weeks and thought I would share a few findings thus far.

Screen Shot 2017-02-09 at 13.53.20

Figure 1. Photos of the Stryd. Super small & light-weight!

 

Benefits of power for running

Many of you will already be using power for cycling but the application to running has some significant differences –  for example in cycling the more power you put through the pedals the faster you go. However, in running you could theoretically have increases in power but no increase in speed, but why? The simple reason is you’re locked into a certain position on a bike and the measurement of power simply represents what goes into the power meter via the pedals. This is very different during running as we use power ideally fwd motion, but as you know when we run we move up and down and side to side. All of this non forward movement could result in a loss of forward propulsion from our power production. The take-home not all power results in fwd movement.

Therefore, the Stryd could be a great tool in  assessing the point at which power peaks in faster running and at what point any additional power does not further increase speed.

 

This type of data can provide guidance in technique development by helping modify our form so that any wasted power (excessive up and down and side to side) can be corrected to result in better fwds movement.

So from a personal point of view I have used cadence on Garmin’s to be more economical in my running. However,  I did not know how to ‘effectively’ apply form changes to impact other metrics such as ground contact time (GCT), vertical oscillation (VO), stride length (SL), vertical ratio (VR) that then show up as faster running or faster running for less effort (thats the goal right!).

Sometime to much information can be damaging if you cannot find a practical home for it. I am all about practical application rather than just measuring something because we can. To that end lets have a look at the Stryd and how we can use it at a practical level.

 

How Stryd Works?

In essence the Stryd works using 3-dimensional accelerometer and some clever algorithms to estimate power production. According to the Stryd team the product and its data has then been then validated against force plate embedded treadmill in a lab (gold standard of directly measuring force/power).

As such Stryd can measure force production in 3 dimensions (up and down, sided to side and forwards and backwards). This is at a theoretical level is superb as with the right software to extract the data you could not only look at the metrics we see currently on the likes of Garmin 920xt but also some other metrics such as ‘breaking’ during running (something you get if you’re a heal toe runner). Therefore, the Stryd could be an affordable micro-biomechanics lab that could be used not only to measure power (next section) but also to monitor and manipulate in real time, running economy and form (#Free Speed).

 

Power measurement and running

I have to say this blog has been a bit delayed because I have had in my possession the Stryd for a few months. However, I wanted to have a play about with the stryd in multiple conditions and paces (Intervals vs long runs etc etc) to see what it can and cannot do. Being from a wet and windy part of the UK this has made for a challenge when it comes to finding a dry and non-windy day.

There are a few metrics that are a must have for me when running – pace, heart rate, distance and time. As a new bonus power is now a possible ‘new’ metric to add to that list.

 

The Stryd App

At present there are 2 apps available for Stryd when using watches such as Garmins 920xt or similar. These can be accessed by the IQ connect and include:

  • Stryd IQ (official app)
  • Stryd 10s power (non-official / unsupported app)

Then we have additional ways to see the data when using and for post analysis:

  • The stryd app for your phone (during running on a treadmill)
  • The stryd online power centre (post run data analysis)

I have had a play with all of these and the phone is nice if you want to see a big screen whilst in the gym, but on the road is not practical. So I will focus on those ‘other’ apps and the data given from the watch displays and via Stryd’s own website ‘the power centre’.

Before that I want to just give a quick overview of some metrics you can get from the Stryd outside of those typically available with a Garmin such as cadence, hr, vertical oscillation, ground contact time etc.

  • Power: The stryd records real-time (instantaneous power) however, there is a workaround app to give 10s average as discussed below.
  • Leg Spring Stiffness: Based on variance in ground contact times (typically less ground contact means running faster and to a point more economically). In general we see swimmers having very flexible ankle (not stiff) and as such transitioning from swimmer to runner is harder.
  • Form Power: This is the power to raise one’s centre of mass against gravity with each step and is independent of speed and gradient. The application of this is when your form (body position etc) is altered to decrease this number is associated with improved economy and reduced vertical oscillation.

 

My testing of the Stryd

To look at the way the Sytrd works I wanted to check out a few different types of sessions that are typical for most runner and triathlete training sessions. These are the long run (outside) and intervals (treadmill). These are a nice mix of sessions on different surfaces and should be able to highlight the pros and cons from using the Stryd and its related software.

Before we start using the Styd we need to find out our training zones. For me these are carried out during a lactate threshold test (see previous blog on BSx). From that test set training zones are based on Hr, Pace and Power.

 

The Power Centre: Analysis (Pro’s and Cons)

The 1st session was intervals (warm up, then 3 x 11Min reps at 3.45/3.45 min/km or 6.15min/mile if you like imperial). As you can see below (Figure 2) we get some nice square wave power level shapes (orange line) for each fo the 3 intervals. When doing bike intervals and using a power meter these shapes are very similar, and like using power on a bike we can see a lag in the heart rate (purple line) getting up to 160bpm (the goal pace for mid to upper Level 3 work).

pc 1

Figure 2: Stryd’s online power centre – Data analysis from Interval training on a treadmill.

 

The lag in Heart Rate for me was about 5-6 mins before hitting what would be level-3, therefore power allows us to instantly work in the right zone rather than consistently upping or lowering pace until you hit the right the heart rate. However, it could be said why not just set our training zones off pace as that’s a way to cut out the delay (lag) in heart rate rising to the hight level?

Well again we have external issues than can increase or decrease the physiological demand (effort) of maintaining a specific pace. Pace does not take into consideration the effort it might take to get up or down a hill or running into a head wind. What’s great is that (theoretically) using power would make issues as weather (wind) and terrain (hills) irrelevant to a large degree – resulting in consistently hitting the right training zone in every session.

pc 2

Figure 2: Stryd’s online power centre – Data analysis from easy long run!

 

The figure above shows some metrics from a very easy zone 2 run and from it you can see the blue line showing pace (min/km) and its nice and steady and tracks closely with orange line (power) below.

At present what I don’t like from using the Stryd is the variability. The power measurement (see the orange line above) is taken in real time. As such its readings of power jumps quite often (unlike the trace we get on a treadmill – see orange line on Figure x) as power can fluctuate from second to second. The result is constantly checking your watch to try and stay in the right power zone. This is not great and a distraction when it comes to pacing a workout on the road.

The solution to this would be to have the ability to see and average of power measurements over say 5-10 seconds as we can do with power as measured using a Garmin on our bikes or like average pace on a watch. The averaging effect would smooth the values (variability) you see on your watch, making running at a constant power more achievable and less stressful. I will discuss the possibility of a workaround for this in the ‘Watch App’ section below.

PC3

Figure 3: Stryd’s power centre – Lots of metrics available on the power centre for data freaks.

 

When you use the power centre there are a whole host of data fields that can be looked at (See Figure 3 above). But for my own view there are only a few that seem of interest at this time. ‘Form power’ (see the ‘Stryd app’ section above for what this metric means) and ‘cadence’ are the main 2 beyond power.

When you run (On a treadmill) is easier to keep a check on ‘form power’ during the session. My view is that keeping form power low is typically due to leg turnover (cadence) and also how you toe-off when running. It provides some pretty quick feedback and typically as form power drops you will also see the power to maintain a set speed falls (more efficient?).

What I cannot say is how this metric is useful across a range of abilities. For myself whilst I don’t have a very high VO2max, my running economy is very good as is my cadence. Therefore, I do not see a huge benefit for an economic runner. However, in others I see run cadence a major issue in them becoming more economic. Many can achieve high (>180) cadence figures when running at 5-10k pace but this drops of significantly as the distance increases and pace drops. I believe that truly economic runners with good form will hold a cadence of circa 180 almost irrespective of run pace (recovery vs. marathon).

As such I see some nice options from the metrics but outside of ‘form powder’ and ‘cadence’ I think they are just nice metrics to perhaps compare overtime (something you can do in the power centre i.e. compare metrics from one workout against the same workout a few weeks later).

 

 The watch app

The biggest downfall of the Stryd is the watch app. The primary App is available from the GARMIN connect store (Stryd IQ). The app allows you to download the data post run to the power centre and also to training peaks. the issue is that there is no ability to decide what metrics you can see on each data field. You simply have to accept the data fields the app allows you to see with power.

watch app

Figure 4: Watch metrics – well at least the useful ones!

 

You also cannot alter the sampling rate for power i.e. per 3, 10, 30 Seconds etc. As above this causes some issues. There is a workaround for those wanting average power and that’s in the form of an app from the Garmin Connect IQ store called ‘Avg Power 10s’. This is the metric I now use on my runs but unfortunately it does not record the power data from that session – so although you can see the data field during the run (average 10s power) and your other chosen metrics such as heart rate and pace etc its not downloadable. It’s also not supported by Stryd.

https://apps.garmin.com/en-IE/apps/ae28e863-89d6-408c-b4a6-94a1683aec7e;jsessionid=A8BF8154DDBF09E083FF08EEB10F970A

 

Is it fit for purpose: Future proofing?

There is great potential for using power for run training and racing but there are still some significant issues to be resolved. I live in the north of the UK and we can get some real windy days and the effort to run in side winds are not fully transferred into the Stryds power measurements in my experience. As such to measure physiological effort in such conditions you need to fall back to heart rate.

However, in days where wind is below 10mph the Styrd is spot on in its accuracy and reproducibility. You can set you training zones using the stryd but take care on what surface. You will get different readings depending on the surface you run on. In my own testing the harder the surface the higher the power recorded. From one treadmill to another despite the same gradient and speed there is circa a 10w difference. Therefore, you will need to build in this when considering your training zones and perhaps power to use if for a race on the road vs. off-road / x-county.

The app needs a major makeover – its very ridged and at this time its not very intuitive in setting it up. What you want is the ability to connect to Stryd as you would a heart rate monitor and for your Garmin to know that and then you have in the field data options all the potential metrics available. Metrics such as those in the power centre plus and ability to look at average power for laps, 5, 10, 30 seconds etc. This will no doubt require more co-operation between Stryd and Garmin and other watch makers.

 

Downloading Data

The final issues relate to training peaks. The only data that gets downloaded is power but no ‘form power’ or ‘LSS’ or similar metrics seen in the Stryd power centre. The other major issue for me personally is the data that shows up as power on training peaks does not sync with WKO4. As such when you want to do some in-depth analysis your cannot use power i.e. the whole point of using the Stryd.

There is also I am sure some other great metrics that you could get from the Stryd but just not accessible ‘yet’. Because it measures 3d power with the right software we could get values related to heal striking (breaking). This would be a valuable metric for helping alter run form and from what I hear from Stryd its something possible for the future.

I know from following the Stryd forums and asking staff about the issues of setting up the app etc that they are trying to resolve these early adopter issues. Similarly, the WKO4 team are working on an update for Stryd but as of yet not timelines have been released.