Yes with running I don’t think you can compare different devices as there is no real calculation standard yet. Also I don’t think you can compare absolute running and cycle power, from what I’ve seen running power always comes out higher.
However, my understanding of the general concept of load is that if you work at a defined baseline power (or HR) for 60mins you get a score of 100. So as long as the baselines are correct, i.e. having a separate running and cycling baseline (FTP) the Load scores should be comparable. This is of course a very simplified view assuming that the power-duration relationships for running and cycling are the same.
As an aside - Stryd uses CP for the baseline value so my power based Load scores on Stryd come out lower than i calculate elsewhere (CP being 367W, FTP being 350W). Stryd is therefore assuming that you can maintain your CP for 60mins; the debate around what does CP/FTP represent being a whole different issue probably best not to get into here
The Stryd isn’t too cheap, about $220, but you don’t need to calibrate it, and most things I have read said it is the most accurate device around for pace and distance. It also has a pressure sensor to correct for headwinds, etc (I just got it this winter so I haven’t run outside with it yet). I am looking forward to warmer weather to get outside and have more numbers to play with
@Jared_H - The need not to caliberate it is a bit of a myth, I actually have 2 (don’t ask) and they do give different results with both set up the same, and don’t give the same distance either even with both on the same foot. If you read Reddit running forums, Garmin forums or even own Stryd’s facebook page where I posted the results of two myelf (which went down like lead balloon!), it seems a lot of people do end up calibrating it. My first one seems quite accurate for distance, the second one runs shorter than the first so if you plot a distance graph you can see them diverge over time.
