Original Article

Proc IMechE Part P:

J Sports Engineering and Technology
1–6
Absolute reliability and agreement Ó IMechE 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
between Stryd and RunScribe systems sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1754337120984644

for the assessment of running power journals.sagepub.com/home/pip

Antonio Cartón-Llorente1 , Luis E Roche-Seruendo1,

Diego Jaén-Carrillo1 , Noel Marcen-Cinca1 and
Felipe Garcı́a-Pinillos2,3

Abstract
The advent of portable power meters has revolutionized training in cycling, allowing an accurate field-based assessment
of athletes. In a similar way, researchers have recently developed low-cost gait analysis equipment to assess running
power in a more natural environment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the absolute reliability of two different
power meters and the agreement between these two wearable devices (i.e., Strydä and RunScribeä) for measuring
power during treadmill running. About 49 endurance runners performed a running protocol on a treadmill at self-
selected comfortable velocities. Power output (W) was measured using the Strydä and RunScribeä systems, which
were attached to the same shoe. The absolute reliability, based on coefficient of variation, was 0.32 6 0.29% for Strydä
and 1.68 6 1.49% for RunScribeä, while the standard error of the mean were 0.3 6 0.2 W and 2.6 6 2.5 W for Strydä
and RunScribeä, respectively. Data from both devices showed significant correlations (r = 0.783, p \ 0.001) and the
ICC (r = 0.855) reported an almost perfect reliability. Bland–Altman plots revealed no heteroscedasticity of error
(r2 = 0.030), although a moderate systematic bias (212.3 6 26.6 W), and wide limits of agreement (39.8–64.3 W) were
found. Considering the increased popularity of using power meter devices in running, scientists, coaches, athletes, and
general users should be aware that data from these devices are reliable, but not interchangeable, due to the variation
shown for running power output data.

Keywords
Endurance, runners, sensors, wearables, power meters

Date received: 3 September 2020; accepted: 9 December 2020

Introduction determine relationships between these loads and perfor-

Performance in endurance sports is underpinned by a
range of physical and physiological conditions which
adapt in response to training. Efficient monitoring of
these responses is a key factor for applied researchers
and practitioners to detect individual adaptations to
the training programs.1–3 The biological effect that a
certain training or competition causes in the organism
is called internal load, whereas the objective workload
that an athlete completes is known as external load.4 A
wide variety of internal load monitoring methods have
been used in endurance sports, such as ratings of per-
ceived exertion (RPE), blood lactate or heart rate and
its derivatives. However, given that there is no single,
definitive marker that can accurately quantify the fit-
ness and fatigue responses to training,5 concurrent
assessment of internal and external load is needed to
mance.6 As a result, wearable devices have revolutio-
nized training and racing by including Global
Positioning System (GPS) technologies to instantly
track external indicators like distance, speed or pace.
However, these metrics have proven to be highly
dependent on environmental factors, such as wind
force or slope gradient, so a more accurate and
1
Health Sciences Faculty, Universidad San Jorge, Zaragoza, Spain
2
Department of Sports and Physical Education, University of Granada,
Granada, Spain
3
Department of Physical Education, Sports and Recreation, Universidad
de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile
Corresponding author:
Antonio Cartón-Llorente, Universidad San Jorge, Campus Universitario,
Villanueva de Gállego, Autov A23 km 299, Zaragoza 50830, Spain.
Email: acarton@usj.es
2 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)
repeatable method was needed to assess current train-
ing stress. The inclusion of accelerometers and inertial
measurements units (IMUs) in tiny wearable devices
meant a great step forward for quantifying intensity in
the field, as it has allowed for real-time assessment of
mechanical power. Actually, power output data proved
to be more reliable and sensitive than other previous
workload indicators when determining slight changes
in exercise intensity.7 Therefore, coaches and athletes
have opted to use power output data to track their cur-
rent performance and manage intensity during training
and racing.
In the last few years, the advent of portable power
meters has drastically changed training and racing in
cycling, allowing for an accurate field-based assessment
of athletes.8 The data obtained can also be used to aid
in decisions relating to cycling position and technique,
competition demands, or equipment selection.9 In a
similar way, researchers have recently developed afford-
able, portable gait analysis equipment (e.g., Strydä and
RunScribeä systems) to assess running power output
in natural environments.10 Through algorithmic com-
putations and inclusion of the runner’s body mass,
those wearables are able to estimate the forces gener-
ated based on temporal patterns in triaxial accelerome-
try and GPS tracking, considering the existing changes
in running spatiotemporal parameters due to speed and
slope.11 Although the Strydä and RunScribeä systems
are relatively new tools, the validity and reliability of
these systems for the assessment of power output12 and
spatiotemporal parameters13–15 have been recently vali-
dated. Thus, they may be useful for monitoring individ-
uals and quantifying changes in functional performance
over time. In this context, the running power data from
Strydä had been successfully used to establish a linear
power-velocity relationship to predict the power output
at different submaximal running velocities,16 showing
the great potential of this portable equipment. In addi-
tion, a few studies found a positive correlation between
Strydä power data and running economy17 or meta-
bolic demands.18 Recently, a study by Cerezuela-Espejo
et al.12 investigated the correlation between these power
meters and oxygen consumption (r ø 0.911 and r
ø 0.582 for Strydä and RunScribeä, respectively).
Similarly, a study by van Dijk and van Megen19 indi-
cated that the external mechanical power (W/kg)
reported by the Strydä system highly correlated
(r2 = 0.96) with metabolic cost (VO2 in ml/kg/min).
However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the
absolute reliability of each system and their level of
agreement related to the power output data have not
been determined.
Therefore, the aims of the current study are to deter-
mine the absolute reliability (within-subject variation)
and evaluate the level of agreement between the Strydä
and RunScribeä systems for measuring power output
during running at comfortable self-selected speeds on a
motorized treadmill.
Methods
Participants
Forty-four men and five women, all amateur endurance
runners (age: 26 6 8 years; height: 1.74 6 0.07 m; body
mass: 71 6 10 kg) volunteered to participate in the pres-
ent study. Every participant was older than 18, able to
run 10 km in less than 50 min, free from any injury in
the lower limb for the last 6 months prior to data col-
lection, and reported a weekly mileage greater than
12 km for the same time period. Informed consent
forms were collected from all participants before testing
trials after receiving detailed information of the study.
This study complied with the ethical standards of the
World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki
(2013) and was approved by the Ethics Committee of
the corresponding institution. It was ensured that parti-
cipants understood they could abandon the study at
any time.
Measures
Body height (m) and mass (kg) were determined using
a precision stadiometer and weighing scale (SECA 222
and 634, respectively, SECA Corp., Hamburg,
Germany) for descriptive purposes.
Power output in W was acquired using the Strydä
power meter (Stryd power meter, Stryd Inc., Boulder,
CO, USA) and RunScribeä system (Scribe Lab Inc.,
San Francisco, CA, USA) placed on the laces of the
same running shoe (Figure 1).
Strydä is a carbon fiber-reinforced footpod based
on a 6-axis inertial motion sensor (3-axis gyroscope, 3-
axis accelerometer). Data were retrieved from the man-
ufacturer’s website (https://www.stryd.com/powercen-
ter/analysis) into the .fit file. Then, data were analyzed
using the free license software (Golden Cheetah, ver-
sion 3.4) and exported as a .csl file. RunScribeä,
launched in 2015, is based on a 9-axis (3-axis gyro-
scope, 3-axis accelerometer, 3-axis magnetometer).
Data from RunScribeä were also collected from the
Figure 1. Strydä and RunScribeä footpods placement.
Cartón-Llorente et al. 3

developer’s website (https://dashboard.runscribe.com/ Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the participants (mean,

runs) into the .csv file. Then, data from both systems 6SD; n, %).
were imported into ExcelÒ (v. 2016, Microsoft, Inc.,
Variables
Redmond, WA, USA) and further analyzed.
Sex Male 44 (89.8%)
Female 5 (10.2%)
Design and procedures Age (years) 26.16 (8.35)
The testing protocol was designed to be carried out on Height (m) 1.74 (0.07)
Body mass (kg) 70.9 (9.5)
one specific day. Before testing, intense physical activity
Velocity (km/h) 11.7 (1.3)
and any food intake was avoided for 48 and 3 h, respec-
tively. Participants wore their own running clothes and
shoes in order to maintain their usual performance.
A motorized treadmill (WOODWAY Pro XL, Table 2. Coefficient of variation (CV) and standard error of
Woodway, Inc., Waukesha, WI, USA) was used for the the mean (SEM) of power data from the Strydä and RunScribeä
running protocol, set at an initial velocity of 8 km h21 systems.
with an increase of 1 km/h each minute until partici-
pants felt a comfortable speed was reached. Once parti- Device CV (%) SEM (W)
cipants felt comfortable, the running velocity was set
Strydä 0.32 6 0.29 0.3 6 0.2
(i.e. self-selected comfortable running velocity: RunScribeä 1.68 6 1.49 2.6 6 2.5
11.7 6 1.3 km/h) and maintained for the entire proto-
col. An 8-min accommodation program was performed
at the self-selected velocity.20,21 After that, data were
recorded for 3 min. A slope gradient of 0% was between data from the two devices. Ultimately, Bland-
adopted during the entire protocol. Altman plots (i.e., limits of agreement method, mean
difference 6 1.96 SD)21 were constructed to assess sys-
tematic and proportional bias between the measured
Statistical analysis and estimated values of mechanical variables for the
Descriptive statistics are represented as mean (6SD). Strydä vs. RunScribeä systems. Heteroscedasticity of
Normal distribution and homogeneity tests were deter- error was defined as an r2 . 0.1.23 The level of signifi-
mined by the Shapiro-Wilk and Levene’s test, respec- cance used was p \ 0.05. Data analysis was performed
tively, before data analysis. Coefficient of variation using SPSS (version 23, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
(CV) and standard error of the mean (SEM) were cal-
culated as an absolute reliability measurement. The CV
(%) represents the within-subject variation [CV = SD/
Results
mean 3 100] and it was calculated on an individual A description of the participants’ characteristics is
basis by considering the first-, second- and third-minute shown in Table 1.
power data. The SEM indicated the standard deviation
of a sampling distribution (SEM = SD/On)22–24 being
calculated on an individual basis. To determine concur- Reliability
rent validity, a Pearson correlation analysis was per- Table 2 shows the CV and SEM (as measures of abso-
formed between Strydä and RunScribeä power data. lute reliability) of power output during running from
The following criteria were adopted to interpret the both systems.
magnitude of correlations between measurement vari-
ables: \ 0.1 (trivial), 0.1–0.3 (small), 0.3–0.5 (moder-
ate), 0.5–0.7 (large), 0.7–0.9 (very large), and 0.9–1.0 Comparative analysis
(almost perfect), as suggested by Hopkins.24 Intraclass The power output reported by the Strydä and
correlation coefficients (ICC), as measures of relative RunScribeä systems are presented in Table 3. The
reliability, were also calculated between Strydä and paired t-test demonstrated significant differences
RunScribeä for power output during running. Based (p = 0.002) between devices, and the Pearson correla-
on the characteristics of this experimental design and tion analysis conducted (Figure 2) showed very large
following the guidelines reported by Koo and Li,25 a correlations (r = 0.783, p \ 0.001, SEE = 29.6 W) and
‘‘two-way random-effects’’ model (ICC [2,k]), ‘‘mean of an almost perfect relative reliability (r = 0.855).
measurements’’ type, and ‘‘absolute’’ definition for the Through Bland-Altman plots, Figure 3 shows the
ICC measurement were conducted. The interpretation differences between the two devices (systematic bias
of the ICC was based on the benchmarks reported by a and random error) and the degree of agreement
previous study26: ICC \ 0 (poor), 0–0.20 (slight), between the two systems (95% limits of agreement).
0.21–0.40 (fair), 0.41–0.60 (moderate), 0.61–0.80 (sub- Even though heteroscedasticity of error was not found
stantial), and . 0.81 (almost perfect). Pairwise compar- (r2 = 0.030), these plots revealed a moderate systematic
isons of means (paired t-test) were also conducted bias and a large random error (212.3 6 26.6 W) for the
4 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)
Table 3. Descriptive values and comparative analysis of power output during running from the Strydä and RunScribeä systems.
Mean (SD)
Strydä RunScribeä
Power output (W) 238.9 6 37.7 251.2 6 42.0
ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval.
Figure 2. Pearson’s correlation analysis between RunScribe
and Stryd’s power output data achieved during a 3-min treadmill
running protocol.
SEE: standard error of estimate.
Circles indicate individual data of the crossing point between average
values for each device.
Figure 3. Bland-Altman plots for the measurement of power
output during running at a self-selected comfortable speed for
the Strydä and RunScribeä systems.
The plot includes the mean difference (dotted line) and 95% limits of
agreement (dashed lined), along with the regression line (solid line).
power output during running at comfortable self-
selected speeds obtained from the Strydä system as
compared to the RunScribeä system. Limits of
t-test Correlation ICC (2, k)
p-value r (p-value) 95% CI
0.002 0.783 ( \ 0.001) 0.855 (0.707–0.924)
agreement for power data during running between both
systems varied widely (39.8 to 264.3 W).
Discussion
This study aimed at determining the absolute reliability
and evaluating the agreement between the Strydä and
RunScribeä systems for measuring power during run-
ning on a treadmill at a comfortable self-selected velo-
city (11.7 6 1.3 km/h). The major findings of the current
work were twofold: (i) both systems provided reliable
power output data during running and, (ii) despite
power data from both devices showing an almost per-
fect association and no heteroscedasticity of error, using
the systems interchangeably may not be recommended
due to the inconsistency found between systems.
Both the Strydä and RunScribeä systems showed a
high absolute reliability with a mean CV lower than
3% and a SEM less than 3 W, especially the Strydä
system with a CV ranging between 0.03% and 0.6%
across participants and a SEM of 0.3 6 0.2 W. For the
RunScribeä system, the CV ranged between 0.1% and
3.2% and the SEM was 2.6 6 2.5 W. These results seem
to be supported by a recent study by Cerezuela-Espejo
et al.,12 which also found that the Strydä system is
more reliable than RunScribeä. However, the high
variability found for RunScribeä in the aforemen-
tioned study did not match the results of the current
study, likely due to their comparison between varying
conditions (i.e., treadmill and track). Despite these
methodological differences, the current results for both
devices are consistent, as they are in line with results
from several previous studies27–29 which assessed the
reliability of analogous cycling power meters27,28 (CV
1%–3.05% and SEM ~1 6 5 W) or PowerTap Hub29
(CV 1.7%–2.7% and SEM 2.9 6 3.3 W). Furthermore,
the CV and SEM found in these studies were similar to
results from the current study, highlighting the absolute
reliability of the Strydä and RunScribeä systems to
assess power output during running on a treadmill at a
comfortable velocity.
Regarding the comparative analysis between Strydä
and RunScribeä systems for power assessment, an
almost perfect association was observed between data.
Furthermore, heteroscedasticity of error was not found
(r2 = 0.030), thus the concurrence between both systems
was strong. Despite these results, the limits of agreement
between the two devices varied widely, and a large ran-
dom error (26.55 W) was detected, so the comparison of
Cartón-Llorente et al.
data should be made with caution. Since previous stud-
ies on spatiotemporal parameters during running have
shown that longer recording intervals resulted in smaller
systematic bias, random errors, and narrower limits of
agreement,30 the differences in power assessment are
also expected to decrease for longer recording periods.
However, in the aforementioned work,30 it was stated
that the variability in the spatiotemporal parameters of
running can be accurately calculated within 25–30 steps
(i.e., approximately 10 s), so the 1-min intervals selected
should fit the purpose of this study.
In addition, some methodological differences
between systems could also play a role in this discre-
pancy. The Strydä system uses a sampling rate of
1000 Hz, whereas the RunScribeä system’s rate is only
500 Hz. In addition, although both devices base their
power output calculations on kinematic data, the algo-
rithms applied by each system may not be exactly the
same. Given that there is not a unique definition of run-
ning power,31 different methods for calculating power
output in running exist.32,33 Therefore, the power val-
ues obtained with each device may vary based on the
assumptions made by each system. Unfortunately, the
specific algorithms have not been disclosed by the com-
panies, thus making their comparisons challenging.
Some limitations need to be considered for a proper
interpretation of these results. The reliability was estab-
lished based on within-subject variation (CV), so the
current analysis might not be able to explain the slight
inherent differences between runs performed by the
same subject on different days. Notwithstanding these
limitations, the current study provides positive out-
comes for the absolute reliability of the Strydä and
RunScribeä devices to measure power output during
running on a treadmill at a self-selected velocity, with
the Strydä system reporting more reliable power data
compared to the RunScribeä device. Furthermore, a
good level of agreement between devices was observed
with no heteroscedasticity of error, but the large ran-
dom error detected prevents their interchangeable use
for running power output assessment.
Considering that the use of power meter devices for
competing and training is becoming more popular,
users like scientists, athletes, and coaches should know
that the Strydä and RunScribeä systems showed an
adequate reliability for running power assessments,
with the Strydä system exhibiting more reliable data
for running power evaluation.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following finan-
cial support for the research, authorship, and/or
5
publication of this article: This study was funded by
the University of San Jorge (Universidad San Jorge.
Villanueva de Gállego, Zaragoza, Spain).
ORCID iDs
Antonio Cartón-Llorente https://orcid.org/0000-
0001-5551-6037
Diego Jaén-Carrillo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-
0588-0871
Noel Marcen-Cinca https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
2840-9882
Felipe Garcı́a-Pinillos https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
7518-8234
References
1. Bourdon PC, Cardinale M, Murray A, et al. Monitoring
athlete training loads: consensus statement. Int J Sports
Physiol Perform 2017; 12(Suppl 2): S2161–s2170.
2. Barnes KR and Kilding AE. Running economy: mea-
surement, norms, and determining factors. Sports Med
Open 2015; 1(1): 8.
3. Luedke LE, Heiderscheit BC, Williams DS, et al. Influ-
ence of step rate on shin injury and anterior knee pain in
high school runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2016; 48(7):
1244–1250.
4. Mujika I. The alphabet of sport science research starts
with Q. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2013; 8(5): 465–466.
5. Borresen J and Lambert MI. The quantification of train-
ing load, the training response and the effect on perfor-
mance. Sports Med 2009; 39(9): 779–795.
6. Mujika I. Quantification of training and competition
loads in endurance sports: methods and applications. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform 2017; 12(Suppl 2): S29–S217.
7. Sanders D, Myers T and Akubat I. Training-intensity
distribution in road cyclists: objective versus subjective
measures. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2017; 12(9):
1232–1237.
8. Sanders D, Taylor RJ, Myers T, et al. A field-based
cycling test to assess predictors of endurance perfor-
mance and establishing training zones. J Strength Cond
Res 2020; 34(12): 3482–3488.
9. Passfield L, Hopker JG, Jobson S, et al. Knowledge is
power: issues of measuring training and performance in
cycling. J Sports Sci 2017; 35(14): 1426–1434.
10. Norris M, Anderson R and Kenny IC. Method analysis
of accelerometers and gyroscopes in running gait: a sys-
tematic review. Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineer-
ing and Technology 2014; 228(1): 3–15.
11. Garcia-Pinillos F, Latorre-Roman PA, Ramirez-Cam-
pillo R, et al. How does the slope gradient affect spatio-
temporal parameters during running? Influence of
athletic level and vertical and leg stiffness. Gait Posture
2019; 68: 72–77.
12. Cerezuela-Espejo V, Hernandez-Belmonte A, Courel-Iba-
nez J, et al. Are we ready to measure running power?
Repeatability and concurrent validity of five commercial
technologies. Eur J Sport Sci. Epub ahead of print April
2020. DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2020.1748117.
13. Hollis CKR, Resch JE and Hertel J. Gait mechanics as
measured by a wearable sensor while running at two
speeds on different surfaces. Sports Biomech 2019; 7: 1–
11.
6 Proc IMechE Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 00(0)
14. Garcia-Pinillos F, Roche-Seruendo LE, Marcen-Cinca
N, et al. Absolute reliability and concurrent validity of
the stryd system for the assessment of running stride
kinematics at different velocities. J Strength Cond Res.
Epub ahead of print May 2018. DOI: 10.1519/
jsc.0000000000002595.
15. Koldenhoven RM and Hertel J. Validation of a wearable
sensor for measuring running biomechanics. Digit Bio-
mark 2018; 2(2): 74–78.
16. Garcia-Pinillos F, Latorre-Roman PA, Roche-Seruendo
LE, et al. Prediction of power output at different running
velocities through the two-point method with the Stryd()
power meter. Gait Posture 2019; 68: 238–243.
17. Austin CL, Hokanson JF, McGinnis PM, et al. The rela-
tionship between running power and running economy in
well-trained distance runners. Sports 2018; 6(4): 142.
18. Aubry RL, Power GA and Burr JF. An assessment of
running power as a training metric for elite and recrea-
tional runners. J Strength Cond Res 2018; 32(8): 2258–
2264.
19. van Dijk H and van Megen R. The secret of running:
maximum performance gains through effective power
metering and training analysis. Maidenhead: Meyer &
Meyer Sports, 2017.
20. Schieb DA. Kinematic accommodation of novice tread-
mill runners. Res Q Exerc Sport 1986; 57(1): 1–7.
21. Lavcanska V, Taylor NF and Schache AG. Familiariza-
tion to treadmill running in young unimpaired adults.
Hum Mov Sci 2005; 24(4): 544–557.
22. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine
and science. Sports Med 2000; 30(1): 1–15.
23. Atkinson G and Nevill AM. Statistical methods for asses-
sing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant
to sports medicine. Sports Med 1998; 26(4): 217–238.
24. Hopkins WG, Marshall SW, Batterham AM, et al. Pro-
gressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exer-
cise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41(1): 3–13.
25. Koo TK and Li MY. A guideline of selecting and report-
ing intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability
research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15(2): 155–163.
26. Landis JR and Koch GG. The measurement of observer
agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33(1):
159–174.
27. Bouillod A, Pinot J, Soto-Romero G, et al. Validity, sen-
sitivity, reproducibility, and robustness of the powertap,
stages, and garmin vector power meters in comparison
with the SRM device. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2017;
12(8): 1023–1030.
28. Nimmerichter A, Schnitzer L, Prinz B, et al. Validity and
reliability of the garmin vector power meter in laboratory
and field cycling. Int J Sports Med 2017; 38(6): 439–446.
29. Bertucci W, Duc S, Villerius V, et al. Validity and relia-
bility of the PowerTap mobile cycling powermeter when
compared with the SRM Device. Int J Sports Med 2005;
26(10): 868–873.
30. Garcia-Pinillos F, Latorre-Roman PA, Ramirez-Cam-
pillo R, et al. Minimum time required for assessing step
variability during running at submaximal velocities. J
Biomech 2018; 80: 186–195.
31. Williams KR and Cavanagh PR. A model for the calcula-
tion of mechanical power during distance running. J Bio-
mech 1983; 16(2): 115–128.
32. Fukunaga T and Matsuo A. Effect of running velocity
on external mechanical power output. Ergonomics 1980;
23(2): 123–136.
33. Schepens B, Willems PA, Cavagna GA, et al. Mechanical
power and efficiency in running children. Pflugers Arch
2001; 442(1): 107–116.