Author here: funny you should mention that! Same idea has been on my mind for years at this point.
To me, the holy grail of sports training is to have simple but powerful enough models to estimate power data from dozens of movements, and fit various power curves that match real-world training.
So much promise there.
---
As for Stryd: That's so interesting. I'd imagine a lot of the same parallels to cycling to apply? Once you have your running CP/FTP, I'd imagine you could follow the same cycling training plans (relative to your FTP) for the same intended stimulus.
I'm curious though, can you see the Watts/zone/W'bal/etc. values on a watch or something when you're running?
Very much on the same page as far as the holy grail! Would love if I had all that data (and it was actionable).
As for the Stryd... take this all with a grain of salt because I only have a consumer level understanding but:
You can establish your FTP, but then the issue is setting zones from there. My understanding is that the big thing with establishing them is having an accurate estimation of LT1 and LT2 lactate thresholds. Most zone calculators are approximating that, but those calculators are based on a large body of data comparing lactate levels to cycling power in a controlled environment (a lab). That large body of data doesn’t exist for running power, and I recall reading that the little bit that does indicates that formulas for cycling power’s impact on L1/L2 thresholds don’t line up with running power. It’s also been maybe 4 or 5 years since I was engaged with this so the science may have improved!
Watch wise, when I used it, I have a Garmin Fenix, and it had options to show watts/zones/etc. You can even plug in zone based workouts just like you can with cycling power. I did find it a bit of a pain to monitor on a watch vs a bike computer, but not too big of a deal.
I didn't look into or find any myself, but "power meter enabled" sports like cycling, rowing, etc. have a way to measure the strain/fatigue of efforts relative to the athlete's fitness (FTP). Same would apply here.
There are various methods to measure that strain, e.g. Strava, intervals.icu, TrainerPeak all have their slightly tweaked implementations.
100% agree. And the issue with med-ball slams is they also can just be dropped in a testing setting, and the only power needed to be generated is on the "up" cycle. I wouldn't even trust my own med-ball slam benchmarks from one month to the next, as I'm not confident I slammed them with the same intensity.
I'm curious though, wouldn't a Concept2 ski-erg be the best machine for that job?
>track your one rep max force [...] especially for sprinters
Yeaaah that's the ticket =) One level of abstraction higher: you can think of that 1RM as the leftmost point on the max power curve, i.e. max force you've historically generated, from 5secs all the way to e.g. 60 mins [1].
Both are needed, but for an athlete watts is by far the more useful feedback for training, and following the intended stimulus of workouts.
As a workout, "bike 30 km" is vague and meaningless. "bike 30km in 1h" is better, but not specific to the athlete: some have better cardio than others. Most serious cardio workouts are given in zones: "bike 1h at 60-65% of your functional threshold power" [1] – this particular workout would also be known as "zone 2 training session".
Thinking back, I should also add: if you're interested in how hard a single hit is, then yes joules!
I'm approaching it as a workout, where you're doing dozens of hit. Good idea to have an individual strike joule view to the display though! "carnival mode"
My Samsung computer monitor is also the stuff of nightmares. Same story: useless "smart" UI features. I'm told I can use it as a dozen different things. But it sucks as a computer monitor.
My Samsung 4k 240hz OLED monitor has an absolutely gorgeous panel but if I knew I'd need to connect it to the internet and run a PYTHON script to disable some of its "features"[1] I probably would have gotten a similar LG display instead.
That makes me sad. Many, many years ago I had a 17" Samsung CRT. It broke within the warranty period. I called their support and explained the problem. They asked for my receipt. I didn't have one, but I told them that the sticker on the back said it had only been manufactured 9 months ago, so it had to still be under warranty. Their support person agreed. They checked their inventory and found that they were out of stock on that model, and asked if I'd be OK with them upgrading me to a 19" CRT. Sure!
I was fiercely loyal to them for a lot of years after that experience.
I got their monitors from the "before" they bunged smart into everything. 2 x 4K from 2016/2017. These things refuse to die and the picture is still good.
Unfortunately all of my relatives love their phones.
Mid range samsung phone here, great performance but even with their keyboard disabled on a non-rooted phone it still copies your clipboard on every copy/paste. I will be buying something else next time.
Haven't disassembled it yet so i don't know but when i turned on clipboard notifications i started getting two messages. One for my password manager and a second for the disabled branded keyboard.
Fine tuning was never really hard to do locally if you had the hardware. What I’d like to read in an article like this is more details into why they’re making a comeback.
I'm not familiar with the Australian education system or this study's design, but at first glance, this quote
>The report, commissioned by the Alliance of Girls’ Schools Australasia, was conducted by Macquarie Marketing Group using OECD data
reads more to me like "we found that all-girl private schools are better than the average of public and private schools", and the obvious reason why is probably *because they're private schools*, and not because they're all-girl.
> there are some underlying factors skewing these results, such as:
> * grammar schools are more likely to be single-sex
> * co-educational schools have a higher proportion of poorer pupils
> * girls are more likely to get good results
The original statement which I replied to was an absolute position. These examples invalidate it.
Also note that both of your comments show that people in a position to choose, are choosing single sex schools for their daughters and getting better outcomes on average.
Lastly, while the article mentions some caveats around selective state schools, the other side of that is the UK has many single sex comprehensive schools. We should not ascribe too much weight to the caveat.
To me, the holy grail of sports training is to have simple but powerful enough models to estimate power data from dozens of movements, and fit various power curves that match real-world training.
So much promise there.
---
As for Stryd: That's so interesting. I'd imagine a lot of the same parallels to cycling to apply? Once you have your running CP/FTP, I'd imagine you could follow the same cycling training plans (relative to your FTP) for the same intended stimulus.
I'm curious though, can you see the Watts/zone/W'bal/etc. values on a watch or something when you're running?
reply