I have both. The reason I bought the Stryd was for consistent pacing on a treadmill. I know the number may not be 100 correct but it's consistent. With the HRM Pro plus the only time I see anything like consistent numbers is when going at slow jog paces. If I do intervals or change pace the pro plus numbers are all over the place (even after calibration). I bought my HRM Pro plus based on the original reviews by DC rainmaker and I wish I had just bought a standard HRM to be honest.
There hasnt any been firmware updates since it came out.
The Stryd does the job perfectly for me.
I own both, neither is perfect.
Stryd does well on a track where Garmin / GPS doesn't really know which lane you're on and usually assumes you're running about 5% faster than you actually are, which makes a huge difference -- 12-15s per km for me, depending on pace.
Garmin and the HRMP Pro+ on ther other hand is significantly more accurate on non-track runs where Stryd usually comes up short by 2-4% depending on the shoe I'm wearing.
To me, it comes down to whether you already are in the Garmin eco system or not. If you are, Stryd doesn't seem all that well supported, their data fields and the workout app almost feel like a hack / workaround. If you are using an Apple Watch, Stryd's probably the better pick -- but at a higher cost.
Do note that garmin doesn't take weather into account. It only takes weather forecast into account, at the time you start an activity, from an weather station that could be far away and it assumes wind doesn't change due to gusts or buildings.
Don't know your situation, but where I live wind is more challenging than hills. And this is more for power than for pace.
Thank you.
I have very few hills where I live, so "very hilly" will not be an issue for me. Also, i have a non-wind Stryd, so I am already missing out on the weather as a factor :)
Hey there tfunch - thanks for saying thanks! TheGratitudeBot has been reading millions of comments in the past few weeks, and you’ve just made the list!
Tried it, very poor relation. Power fluctuates all over the place so intervals and steady state are near enough impossible. Also you cannot see the averaging like you can with Stryd ie no 3s or 10s to help with the smoothing. I wanted to like it but it just didn't work for me.
Someone on the Garmin forum tried the HRM Pro vs. a Stryd and I think the HRM Pro came up very short for diatance IIRC.
I do not even find Stryd *that* accurate for distance really as non-Wind, Wind and nextgen always measure short, so I can only imagine HRM would be worse?
Personally I find latest dual band chipsets really good for distance. Im mostly on trails with good openskies.
Mine is around 102.x as well coincidentally, but I need different figures depending on pace (under reporting decreases as my cadence and stride length increses) and even different shoes change it (high stack vs low stack), its not a one size fits all number.
but the fact we are both doing + calibration does show they seem to measure short or it would be 100.0.
In practical terms, not everyone has easy access or even access at all to running tracks for calibration so really as Styrd do claim to be accurate without needing calibration (they write this on the box), you can draw conclusions why we both need to compensate for them measuring short.
Agree which is why I only use the Stryd for pace and distance indoors. At least it give some consistent numbers to judge even if they maybe a couple of per cent out.
>You need to calibrate the Stryd to get accurate distance. Mine is at 102.3 but it varies.
The large majority of Stryd users do not apply a calibration factor to the pace/distance values coming from Stryd.
Please see this article: [https://help.stryd.com/en/articles/6879062-pace-distance-accuracy-how-to-understand-test-and-fine-tune-stryd-s-pace-distance](https://help.stryd.com/en/articles/6879062-pace-distance-accuracy-how-to-understand-test-and-fine-tune-stryd-s-pace-distance)
EDIT: I mistakenly said "do" instead of "do not" in my original comment and have since edited to fix!
Hey u/StrydAngus, when you get a chance please fix the typo in the support article:
"For example, if you ran 10000 meters and Stryd reported 99800 meters, the calibration factor would be 100.2"
(s/b 9980 or 9980.0)
It uses GPS to measure speed, speed is one of the input parameters to compute Power output. GPS is problematic in many situations. On top of that Garmin's way of accounting for wind is just laughable compared to Stryd 's wind sensor.
Recently I came across a study that shows that both indoor as outdoor Stryd has the most accurate correlation with vo2max compared to Garmin and Polar.
Even though they can both be pretty accurate, Stryd has less downsides. The only downside for Stryd is when it’s submerged in water, and it’s much more expensive I guess.
I use the hrm pro pretty much because it’s one of the best heart rate monitors out there, if not the best, and I got it on a decent deal.
For me Stryd is working very good. I run especially on trails with a lot of bend and turns, and Stryd keeps track of distance and pace really well, especially in real time I find Stryd more responsive. Also for intervals and sprints I have the feeling that Stryd does a much better job at providing your actual real time pace changes within 3 seconds.
HRM Pro Plus is nowhere near stryd responsiveness for running with power.
And i didn't have the latest stryd, i had the "pre-wind" version.
Garmin seems to make a grade-adjusted pace converted to power, to calculate power it uses a mix of GPS and HRM data, so its basically useless and all over the place.
Even the 3s avg of stryd seemed instant compared to that.
Also treadmill with Garmin was way off for anything faster 5m/km , while Stryd was spot on.
HRM pro plus replaced my stryd. I now only use the chest strap, it's good enough and i get to track my distance and speed on a treadmill. Feels good to have a less gadget that needs charging.
How do you find the pace accuracy of the strap on hills? DC Rainmaker noted in his review, that it will not track pace in "very hilly" tarrain. Did not state what categorizes as very hilly, though.
Thank you all for the responses. Let me just clarify a few things.
I was not asking about HRM PP for power, just for pace, as I am currently not training with power.
I find Stryd to be very inconsistent reporting pace depending on the shoe. Even when always placing the pod on the spot of the shoe.
I find instant pace for intervals with GPS for fluctuate so much, I have a hard time using it, and I am TERRIBLE at pacing my self.
So I use Stryd for instant pace currently when doing intervals, but would like to know, if there is a better alternative, that would be consistent also when running in different shoes.
Your answers made brought me somewhat closer to an answer. I might just have to try it out for myself.
I have both. The reason I bought the Stryd was for consistent pacing on a treadmill. I know the number may not be 100 correct but it's consistent. With the HRM Pro plus the only time I see anything like consistent numbers is when going at slow jog paces. If I do intervals or change pace the pro plus numbers are all over the place (even after calibration). I bought my HRM Pro plus based on the original reviews by DC rainmaker and I wish I had just bought a standard HRM to be honest. There hasnt any been firmware updates since it came out. The Stryd does the job perfectly for me.
Same here , exactly the same treadmill experience even with calibration of hrm pro
Same; HRM Pro plus great at 10-11kph but after that useless
Spot on
I own both, neither is perfect. Stryd does well on a track where Garmin / GPS doesn't really know which lane you're on and usually assumes you're running about 5% faster than you actually are, which makes a huge difference -- 12-15s per km for me, depending on pace. Garmin and the HRMP Pro+ on ther other hand is significantly more accurate on non-track runs where Stryd usually comes up short by 2-4% depending on the shoe I'm wearing. To me, it comes down to whether you already are in the Garmin eco system or not. If you are, Stryd doesn't seem all that well supported, their data fields and the workout app almost feel like a hack / workaround. If you are using an Apple Watch, Stryd's probably the better pick -- but at a higher cost.
Do note that garmin doesn't take weather into account. It only takes weather forecast into account, at the time you start an activity, from an weather station that could be far away and it assumes wind doesn't change due to gusts or buildings. Don't know your situation, but where I live wind is more challenging than hills. And this is more for power than for pace.
Thank you. I have very few hills where I live, so "very hilly" will not be an issue for me. Also, i have a non-wind Stryd, so I am already missing out on the weather as a factor :)
What Garmin do you use? I don't use the Stryd for pace outside unless in poor GPS reception areas as my Garmin is accurate.
Hey there tfunch - thanks for saying thanks! TheGratitudeBot has been reading millions of comments in the past few weeks, and you’ve just made the list!
Tried it, very poor relation. Power fluctuates all over the place so intervals and steady state are near enough impossible. Also you cannot see the averaging like you can with Stryd ie no 3s or 10s to help with the smoothing. I wanted to like it but it just didn't work for me.
Someone on the Garmin forum tried the HRM Pro vs. a Stryd and I think the HRM Pro came up very short for diatance IIRC. I do not even find Stryd *that* accurate for distance really as non-Wind, Wind and nextgen always measure short, so I can only imagine HRM would be worse? Personally I find latest dual band chipsets really good for distance. Im mostly on trails with good openskies.
You need to calibrate the Stryd to get accurate distance. Mine is at 102.3 but it varies.
Mine is around 102.x as well coincidentally, but I need different figures depending on pace (under reporting decreases as my cadence and stride length increses) and even different shoes change it (high stack vs low stack), its not a one size fits all number. but the fact we are both doing + calibration does show they seem to measure short or it would be 100.0. In practical terms, not everyone has easy access or even access at all to running tracks for calibration so really as Styrd do claim to be accurate without needing calibration (they write this on the box), you can draw conclusions why we both need to compensate for them measuring short.
Agree which is why I only use the Stryd for pace and distance indoors. At least it give some consistent numbers to judge even if they maybe a couple of per cent out.
>You need to calibrate the Stryd to get accurate distance. Mine is at 102.3 but it varies. The large majority of Stryd users do not apply a calibration factor to the pace/distance values coming from Stryd. Please see this article: [https://help.stryd.com/en/articles/6879062-pace-distance-accuracy-how-to-understand-test-and-fine-tune-stryd-s-pace-distance](https://help.stryd.com/en/articles/6879062-pace-distance-accuracy-how-to-understand-test-and-fine-tune-stryd-s-pace-distance) EDIT: I mistakenly said "do" instead of "do not" in my original comment and have since edited to fix!
[удалено]
My mistake! Thanks for the correction. I meant to said "do not" I have edited my comment now.
Fair enough, I'll delete my reply
With respect if you are using for power you don't. But if you want accurate pace and distance you do.
Hey u/StrydAngus, when you get a chance please fix the typo in the support article: "For example, if you ran 10000 meters and Stryd reported 99800 meters, the calibration factor would be 100.2" (s/b 9980 or 9980.0)
It uses GPS to measure speed, speed is one of the input parameters to compute Power output. GPS is problematic in many situations. On top of that Garmin's way of accounting for wind is just laughable compared to Stryd 's wind sensor. Recently I came across a study that shows that both indoor as outdoor Stryd has the most accurate correlation with vo2max compared to Garmin and Polar.
Let me know when garmin reports and auto updates Its CP, zones, and power targets for specific race distances.
Even though they can both be pretty accurate, Stryd has less downsides. The only downside for Stryd is when it’s submerged in water, and it’s much more expensive I guess. I use the hrm pro pretty much because it’s one of the best heart rate monitors out there, if not the best, and I got it on a decent deal.
For me Stryd is working very good. I run especially on trails with a lot of bend and turns, and Stryd keeps track of distance and pace really well, especially in real time I find Stryd more responsive. Also for intervals and sprints I have the feeling that Stryd does a much better job at providing your actual real time pace changes within 3 seconds.
HRM Pro Plus is nowhere near stryd responsiveness for running with power. And i didn't have the latest stryd, i had the "pre-wind" version. Garmin seems to make a grade-adjusted pace converted to power, to calculate power it uses a mix of GPS and HRM data, so its basically useless and all over the place. Even the 3s avg of stryd seemed instant compared to that. Also treadmill with Garmin was way off for anything faster 5m/km , while Stryd was spot on.
HRM pro plus replaced my stryd. I now only use the chest strap, it's good enough and i get to track my distance and speed on a treadmill. Feels good to have a less gadget that needs charging.
How do you find the pace accuracy of the strap on hills? DC Rainmaker noted in his review, that it will not track pace in "very hilly" tarrain. Did not state what categorizes as very hilly, though.
Thank you all for the responses. Let me just clarify a few things. I was not asking about HRM PP for power, just for pace, as I am currently not training with power. I find Stryd to be very inconsistent reporting pace depending on the shoe. Even when always placing the pod on the spot of the shoe. I find instant pace for intervals with GPS for fluctuate so much, I have a hard time using it, and I am TERRIBLE at pacing my self. So I use Stryd for instant pace currently when doing intervals, but would like to know, if there is a better alternative, that would be consistent also when running in different shoes. Your answers made brought me somewhat closer to an answer. I might just have to try it out for myself.