I can't believe I keep posting serious replies:
This is simple statistics. For such an equation, the margin of error increases as you get farther from the center of your data. This is elementary and I don't see what the dispute is about.
I can't believe I keep posting serious replies:
This is simple statistics. For such an equation, the margin of error increases as you get farther from the center of your data. This is elementary and I don't see what the dispute is about.
because if he was economical he would probably run close to 12 minutes flat!
Morten DK wrote:
But when you (heyyo) say that a VDOT of 85 is not impossible because it doesn't mean that the WR holder has a VO2max of 85 due to differences in economy THEN you must ALSO agree about this:
Let's assume that three very different runners are able to run 12.37,4 min for the 5000m (and then have a VDOT of 85). One of these runners is super economical and does it with a VO2max of only 70. The second runner has a VO2max value of 85. The third runner then MUST have a VO2max of 100 because he is not very economical (the VDOT of 85 means an average VO2max of 85 for runners able to reach 85 as their VDOT).
No he need not have that VO2 max. Because as has been pointed out again and again, VDOT is not simply some average of economy and VO2 Max. VDOT is intended to take into account all factors that make a runner faster. VO2 Max, economy, simple desire and willingness to tolerate discomfort, etc etc et.
That fact also explains why SOME of the very best runners must be less economical than the not so good runners which in the end actually makes fast runners less economical because it's an average!
No it is not. What makes fast runners less economical is that they are running faster.
Morten DK wrote:
because if he was economical he would probably run close to 12 minutes flat!
that's not my question. You're saying there must be a third runner with poor economy and a very high v02max. Why must there be such a runner?
Mr. Obvious wrote:
I can't believe I keep posting serious replies:
This is simple statistics. For such an equation, the margin of error increases as you get farther from the center of your data. This is elementary and I don't see what the dispute is about.
Just when you think you're out, they pull you back in...
As best I can summarize it, here is what the fuss is all about:
Wellnow has a bone to pick with Jack Daniels. He envisions this large group of American elites who are completely discouraged by the whole concept of VDOT. According to wellnow, these poor American elites have the following characteristics:
1. They know their VO2 Max values from lab tests.
2. They follow Daniels training recommendations, use his charts, know their VDOT numbers, etc.
3. They believe in wellnow's his misguided interpretation of VDOT instead of the one Daniels himself wrote.
4. They are therefore all discouraged because they believe they must have higher VO2 Max values or they'll never be able to compete. This is the reason they don't run as fast as Kenenisa Bekele.
Wellnow is here to fix all that. He's going to instill hope in these poor, downtrodden American elites with his vague, "muscle tone" theory. And he's going to tell Jack Daniels what VDOT is all about.
If some runners can run 12.37 with a VO2max of 75 then there must also be someone who needs a VO2max MUCH higher than 85 because the maximum VDOT in the tabel is 85! It's not 80 or something. I do to certain extent agree about the fact that VDOT not necessarily has to be an average number then but if someone are having a lower VO2max than the VDOT number then someone must have a higher also! Or else is the term VDOT just not good enough
Morten your situation is entirely hypothetical and all you prove is that the top times which correspond to 85 VDOT are not reached through having a high V02max because we have yet to test a runner with those but rather being more economical.
Secondly you fail miserably at understanding the concept of average and abuse it to make an erroneous point. Just because 3 athletes with a VDOT of 64 have 3 very different V02maxes in no way means that athletes with a VDOTs of 85 also must. It could just as well be the case that they have a range, but one that has a much smaller deviation say .1 or even .001 points.
Furthermore, Morten, you're argument assumes that the VDOT for athletes who run the same time must always fall within the range of their V02maxes. Dr. Daniels has never said this. It just so happens that this is the case for the example in figure 2, but in the end VDOT is an index which represents an ability level that takes in to account V02max and efficiency among other things. All athletes with a VDOTs of 85 could have V02maxes in the 70's if their ability was due to efficiency gains and psychological factors and not V02max for instance.
Lastly AND most importantly, a VDOT of 85 is the equivalent to a 12:37.4 5k. Saying an 85 is impossible is akin to saying a 12:37.35 is also impossible, which happens to be the World Record.
Morten DK wrote:
If some runners can run 12.37 with a VO2max of 75 then there must also be someone who needs a VO2max MUCH higher than 85 because the maximum VDOT in the tabel is 85! It's not 80 or something. I do to certain extent agree about the fact that VDOT not necessarily has to be an average number then but if someone are having a lower VO2max than the VDOT number then someone must have a higher also! Or else is the term VDOT just not good enough
what???
I LOVE my VDOT, but I do not define myself by it! I do not feel that my VDOT limits me physically or psychologically in competing against others.
The idea that I will feel inferior or that that I can not compete with Kenenisa Bekele because of my VDOT is utter nonsense! I do not blame Dr. Jack Tupper Daniels and his tables for my physical or psychological inadequacies. (For that, I blame my parents.)
Forget about VDOT envy. I don’t care if another guy’s VDOT is bigger than mine. Where I come from, we were taught not to look at another man’s VDOT. My VDOT is all about ME. It gives me a guide to plan my program. Nothing more, nothing less. So far, it has served me well.
Bless you Dr. Daniels.
VDOT-er wrote:
Wrong. Graphing oxygen consumption is NOT graphing VDOT. That's where you keep going wrong. If you are jogging along at an easy pace, you are consuming quite a bit less oxygen but your VDOT is exactly the same. You know why? Because VDOT is a simple ability score. An index. It is not a measure of the oxygen you consume.
Please, please for the love of God try to get this through your thick head.
Look at the different VDOT values and compare the paces. The lower the VDOT value, the better the economy and vice versa. You are missing this, you can't see it, compare the distance run in 15 minutes for a 40 VDOT, compared to an 80 VDOT.
wellnow wrote:
Look at the different VDOT values and compare the paces. The lower the VDOT value, the better the economy and vice versa. You are missing this, you can't see it, compare the distance run in 15 minutes for a 40 VDOT, compared to an 80 VDOT.
there's only one vdot value in the graph. That line is one vdot entry.
VDOT-er wrote:
Morten DK wrote:But when you (heyyo) say that a VDOT of 85 is not impossible because it doesn't mean that the WR holder has a VO2max of 85 due to differences in economy THEN you must ALSO agree about this:
Let's assume that three very different runners are able to run 12.37,4 min for the 5000m (and then have a VDOT of 85). One of these runners is super economical and does it with a VO2max of only 70. The second runner has a VO2max value of 85. The third runner then MUST have a VO2max of 100 because he is not very economical (the VDOT of 85 means an average VO2max of 85 for runners able to reach 85 as their VDOT).
No he need not have that VO2 max. Because as has been pointed out again and again, VDOT is not simply some average of economy and VO2 Max. VDOT is intended to take into account all factors that make a runner faster. VO2 Max, economy, simple desire and willingness to tolerate discomfort, etc etc et.
That fact also explains why SOME of the very best runners must be less economical than the not so good runners which in the end actually makes fast runners less economical because it's an average!
No it is not. What makes fast runners less economical is that they are running faster.
********************************************************
You are talking nonsense, Morten understands that runners with the very highest VO2max values are uneconomical, you don't understand it.
I have explained all of this to you, but you still don't get it.
And saying that VDOT takes into accoutn all the factors that make a runner faster is nonsense too. JD simply doesn't take into account the differences between the runners he tested and the best in the World. The best runners have superior muscular endurance, which is why you can't exrapolate the VDOT to account for their faster times.
wellnow wrote:
********************************************************
You are talking nonsense, Morten understands that runners with the very highest VO2max values are uneconomical, you don't understand it.
I have explained all of this to you, but you still don't get it.
And saying that VDOT takes into accoutn all the factors that make a runner faster is nonsense too. JD simply doesn't take into account the differences between the runners he tested and the best in the World. The best runners have superior muscular endurance, which is why you can't exrapolate the VDOT to account for their faster times.
Let's approach it as basic geometry. It is really a proof.
a=b, b=a
Let's say (I don't have the book in front of me) a 12:37 is given a VDOT value of 85. Then, by definition a VDOT of 85 is worth a 12:37. That's it, really, it's the whole story. The VDOT does not take into account VO2Max or economy or muscle endurance. None of these are accounted for. It is simply a number that shows how fast you are. Faster performances get higher numbers. Tha's all.
I will take a shot at this one wrote:
wellnow wrote:Look at the different VDOT values and compare the paces. The lower the VDOT value, the better the economy and vice versa. You are missing this, you can't see it, compare the distance run in 15 minutes for a 40 VDOT, compared to an 80 VDOT.
there's only one vdot value in the graph. That line is one vdot entry.
************************************************
Look at the numbers in the table.
wellnow wrote:
Look at the different VDOT values and compare the paces. The lower the VDOT value, the better the economy and vice versa. You are missing this, you can't see it, compare the distance run in 15 minutes for a 40 VDOT, compared to an 80 VDOT.
The different VDOT values WHERE? On that graph? There are no "different VDOT values" on that graph. Don't you get that? There is exactly ONE VDOT value on the whole graph, in every single place on the graph: 65.4
wellnow wrote:
Look at the numbers in the table.
The table does not show running economy. They just show paces.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Let's approach it as basic geometry. It is really a proof.
a=b, b=a
Let's say (I don't have the book in front of me) a 12:37 is given a VDOT value of 85. Then, by definition a VDOT of 85 is worth a 12:37. That's it, really, it's the whole story. The VDOT does not take into account VO2Max or economy or muscle endurance. None of these are accounted for. It is simply a number that shows how fast you are. Faster performances get higher numbers. Tha's all.
Exactly, it's just a pace chart, and not a very good one. The VDOT values are rendered meaningless by the fact that every runner is different, and every run they do is different.
VDOT is extremely pretentious.
VDOT-er wrote:
wellnow wrote:Look at the numbers in the table.
The table does not show running economy. They just show paces.
How far does the 40 VDOT run in 15 minutes? How far does the 80 VDOT run in 15 minutes? Compare the economy. Surely you can do that? It's a simple exercise.
Yes, it is just a pace chart. So why are you going off again and again based on what it says about economy? It doesn't say anything about economy.
As a pace chart, is it perfect? No, but it is useful as a generally guideline for where to start.
wellnow wrote:
How far does the 40 VDOT run in 15 minutes? How far does the 80 VDOT run in 15 minutes? Compare the economy. Surely you can do that? It's a simple exercise.
Surely I can. But that would be comparing apples to oranges because you are comparing them running at different speeds. Perhaps you need to be reminded what economy is. Or maybe you just don't like what Daniels says it is. Here you go again, with a page number and everything:
"Running economy involves the amount of oxygen being consumed relative to the runner's body weight and the speed at which he or she is running" - p. 25
The SPEED, Sparky. Gotta control for the speed or you are talking about two different things. Now compare the 80 guy and the 40 guy both running at 7 minutes per mile. Then tell me who is more economical.