Question for jtupper or other training pace gurus about determining VDOT

wellnow wrote:

Yer missin the point again genius.

JD also wrote:

"Keep in mind that the fraction of VO2max demanded is related to duration of the race, not the distance. For example a runner who competes a 10k in 27 minutes is working at about 94% of VO2max; a runner who completes 5k in 27 minutes may also work at 94% of max."

No I am not, Sparky. Your point was that economy goes down as VDOT rises. This still has to be shown anywhere, in any fashion.

1. The graph you referred to does not show because it talks about only one VDOT value everywhere.

2. The pace charts you then referred do not show this because they say nothing about economy.

3. You were (and still are) erroneously trying to compare runners at different speeds, contrary to the definition of economy.

Compare the 10k guy and the 5k guy running at the same speed. Give me a number somewhere, anywhere that shows the faster guy has a worse economy at the same speed than the slower guy. Until you can do that, you've shown nothing except your ignorance of the topic being discussed.

wellnow wrote:

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.

Actually, in real life it has worked very well for me. I am not fast but since I started running again 5 years ago using Daniels' book, the vdot chart has accurately predicted what I am capable of IF trained properly. This is over a span of about 6 vdot numbers in that time.

The marathon time predicted for me seemed impossible when I looked at it and first started training for my first marathon. I hit that time after 2 cycles through the (Plan A) program (using a 5k based vdot). Thus this chart/system that you claim creates a disincentive; actually caused me to strive for and reach a goal I thought I was incapable of. Exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Using this system; I have helped 2 other people, who struggled for years with other systems, reach goals they thought improbable at best.

Of course we are average people and not Olympic caliber athletes so I can't speak to the upper end of the chart you are obsessed with. But for you to make a blanket statement that vdot is not a very good pace chart is absurd and frankly a lie. In real life, with real people, it gets real results.

Since you are so smart I imagine you have your own studies and calculations that correct all this madness. Working in the engineering field and testing theories in real life I am always curious to try something new and would love to try out your system (especially since your theory will make me capable of a 13 min 5k with my very low Vo2max).

Where do I buy the book?

Kevin52 wrote:

Since you are so smart I imagine you have your own studies and calculations that correct all this madness. Working in the engineering field and testing theories in real life I am always curious to try something new and would love to try out your system (especially since your theory will make me capable of a 13 min 5k with my very low Vo2max).

Where do I buy the book?

Good answer to this pretentious punk. He can't admit something went over his head, so he'll spend six months trying to rationalize, shoveling shit against the tide. The system worked very well for me and others I know who have tried it.

What an epic thread. Bravo.

wellnow wrote:

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.

Well, I don't care if it is pretentious of not. If we agree that it is just a pace chart then lots stop arguing over what it says about running economy. VDOT doesn't say anything about economy.

Well, I don't care if it is pretentious of not. If we agree that it is just a pace chart then lots stop arguing over what it says about running economy. VDOT doesn't say anything about economy.[/quote]

Mr Obvious,

Phew!!

Thank you for offering something that I can actually understand...

Sincerely...

Ignore the Crybabies wrote:

Kevin52 wrote:

Since you are so smart I imagine you have your own studies and calculations that correct all this madness. Working in the engineering field and testing theories in real life I am always curious to try something new and would love to try out your system (especially since your theory will make me capable of a 13 min 5k with my very low Vo2max).

Where do I buy the book?

Good answer to this pretentious punk. He can't admit something went over his head, so he'll spend six months trying to rationalize, shoveling shit against the tide. The system worked very well for me and others I know who have tried it.

Good answer? Kevinb52 firsts argues for proof via controlled scientific study and then he(and you) throw out your personal anecdotes as the final words on the subject.

PTF wrote:

Mr Obvious,

Thank you for offering something that I can actually understand...

Admittedly, he says it much better with his few, well-chosen words than I do with my way-too-many words.

The funny part is, he's been saying the same thing, that clearly, since at least page 2 of this thread and it still hasn't sunk in with our boy

But what does VDOT tell us and why call it VDOT? Daniels writes that VDOT stands for VO2max with a little dot over the V meaning a number a little different from your actual VO2max value - but not significantly different. I don't really understand how it can help motivate people reading a professor's writing about needing a VDOT (corresponding to the same VO2max) of 85 or at least 80 to become a world class runner!

Of course none of you believe in wellnow's statements about the importance of neuromuscular coordination and about the fact that the brain controlls movement. But keep believing that all great runners are aerobic monsters - they are NOT! Some are but it is possible to reach a very high level of distance running without super aerobic capacities.

One of the most stupid things I have ever heard was from some french scientists who had calculated that Alberto Contador needed a VO2max of 100 to climb Arcalis (or was it some other mountain?) in the time he did it!

VDOT is a measure of pace. People with higher numbers are faster. People w/ lower numbers are slower.

I do not believe wellnow's statements about neuromuscular coordination are wrong. There is a good bit there that is fine. I do believe he has created a straw man and some false dichotomy by insisting that people who believe that aerobic development is important cannot also believe that neuromuscular coordination is important. They are an integrated system. Which is more important? Hard to measure and probably ultimately unimportant for me and my running, although theoretically interesting.

This is because you keep willfully misunderstanding based on your own definition of VDOT, not that of Daniels.

Daniels does not say VDOT it is "a little different". He does not say "it is not significantly different". He does not equate it with VO2 Max. He absolutely positively does not say it is "corresponding to the same VO2 max"

Moreover, his is not trying to motivate you. He's trying to give you an idea of what paces to train at and how fast you might be able to run other distances.

Another straw man. None of ever said that. We are all aware of Frank Shorter Derek Clayton and their low VO2 maxes.

Then you should go argue with them, not Jack Daniels.

Admittedly, he says it much better with his few, well-chosen words than I do with my way-too-many words.

The funny part is, he's been saying the same thing, that clearly, since at least page 2 of this thread and it still hasn't sunk in with our boy[/quote]

VDOT-er,

It's not you...it's me...

I'm sure you are explaining everything just fine. I just don't have a lot of experience with Jack's system.

The reason that what you and others say doesn't seem to sink in with "our boy," is that he loves to fight. I imagine he has lots to offer but it appears he'd much rather argue. I find him quite a character. Though I can see how he can be very irritating as well.

People are funny...

All the best...

Morten DK wrote:

But what does VDOT tell us and why call it VDOT? Daniels writes that VDOT stands for VO2max with a little dot over the V meaning a number a little different from your actual VO2max value - but not significantly different. I don't really understand how it can help motivate people reading a professor's writing about needing a VDOT (corresponding to the same VO2max) of 85 or at least 80 to become a world class runner!

This is where you're going wrong. Daniels does not say this at all - in fact he states that VDOT is based "strictly on performance". He refers to VDOT as a pseudoVO2max and not a VO2max. No VO2max conclusions can be reached from VDOT. Everyone has seemed to ignore my last post where I quoted from the book where VDOT also takes into account lactate threshold and speed in addition to VO2max and economy. Oh, and it's also based on EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOES INTO PERFORMANCE. It's not possible to make assumptions about one variable in a series of unknowns when you only know one value.

midwesta wrote:

What an epic thread. Bravo.

I agree. This discussion needs to be saved for posterity.

Sorry I've been away for a month or I would have debunked some of this sooner (perhaps making this thread even longer more quickly). Like VDOT-er said, you only have to read to page 2 -- nothing new has really been added since.

I know how VDOT was calculated. From page 2:

"The tables were generated using two regression equations: (1) relating oxygen consumption with velocity, and (2) predicting the amount of time one can run at a given percentage of VO2max. By combining these two equations, ... and looking for convergence for Newton-Raphson curve fitting analysis, one can then mathematically match up a predictable racing time expected at a given distance for someone having a particular VDOT index."

I know how to calculate VDOT. From page 2:

percent_max = 0.8 + 0.1894393 * e^(-0.012778 * time) + 0.2989558 * e^(-0.1932605 * time)

vo2 = -4.60 + 0.182258 * velocity + 0.000104 * velocity^2

vo2max = vo2 / percent_max

The name of the book that introduces the VDOT tables is "Oxygen Power: Performance Tables for Distance Runners" From the name, we can glean that the VDOT table is a performance table. Every performance can be assigned a VDOT index. From that VDOT index, I can compare or equate my actual performance to other performances at different distances. To infer more than that is a mistake. For convenience, it has been curve fit to give numbers that look like VO2max values, but I doubt that that is a main purpose.

To compute a VDOT, all I need is a time, and a velocity. Alternatively, I can do it with a time, and a distance, and compute the velocity (v = d/t).

To compute a VO2max, I need more. I need to measure a volume of oxygen, over time, and I need a weight.

To compute (oxygen) economy, I need a VO2max, and distance and time.

Quite simply, if I only have a VDOT value, I can only talk about different distances and times. It's a mistake to talk about aerobics, or economy, because with a VDOT, all I have is time and distance. Does a higher VDOT have a lower economy? We simply don't know. To talk about these other things, I need to measure oxygen and weight. It's a mistake whether "wellnow" talks about it, or American sub-elites infer it, but this is not a fault of the VDOT tables.

In fact the VDOT tables were created, as if to address the problem, "how can I create a table that ignores the high variability of measured VO2max and measured economy?" The VDOT answer is to assume everyone has the same economy. "wellnow" is calling this a "mean" or an "average". This term is not quite correct, for a couple of reasons, but I'll let that go for now. The VDOT tables don't so much contradict running economy -- they were designed on purpose to ignore running economy. The inverse variations of measured VO2max and running economy seem to cancel out quite nicely, if we fix economy to the same value (or curve) for everyone.

"wellnow" seems to have a problem because the printed VDOT table goes all the way to 85. I'm reminded of Nigel Tufnel's amps which go to 11. (Hint -- the speakers aren't any louder.) If the table stopped at 80, does that make VDOT better? I can compute the table to 200. Does that change the intrinsic value of the VDOT tables? For my own personal purposes, anything beyond 68 is unfeasible. Does that make 85 more absurd?

But back to 85. A VDOT of 85 (time=12:37, distance= 5K) has been achieved, so not only must it be feasible, it actually happened. To say it is unfeasible has already been disproven by the reality.

Mathematically speaking, maybe there is some digression of the curve fit at a VDOT value of 85, but would that invalidate the VDOT table for Bekele? Maybe if the purpose was to guess his VO2max, but that's not the purpose (and VDOT is a poor estimator of VO2max for everyone anyway, from 40 to 84). A VDOT score is supposed to help us determine what Bekele could do in a semi-marathon and a marathon. We've already seen Geb (VDOT 83)move up from 10K to marathon, as predicted by VDOT. Can a VDOT score of 85 really fail so badly for this purpose?

Now let's talk about psychology of numbers. Suppose, for the sake of argument, I were a white sub-elite American runner of today. My current 5K PB, after 15 years of a running career in high school, university, and professional running is 13:10 (d = 5K, t = 13:10, VDOT = 80.94). With a VDOT of 81, am I more intimidated by the number 85, or the number 12:37? Maybe the number 33 (number of seconds of improvement I need to find) is just too psychologically daunting. Or maybe the number 250 (number of meters on the track I lost to Bekele).

Will rescaling the VDOT tables to more "feasible" values of 76 versus Bekele's 80 give me the psychological edge that allows me to close the gap, and beat them Africans? I have my doubts that I won't also be intimidated simply by 12:37 alone. There's no way changing VDOT can solve that.

I understand the VDOT tables. I read DRF 2nd edition.

I also understand VO2max and running economy, and the relation between VDOT.

"wellnow", help me understand your concern with the VDOT performance tables. I simply don't see it. VDOT is a performance table based on distance and time, and makes no statements about economy, aerobic myths, or neuro-muscular coordination.

************************************************

Wrong, the dashed line it the common economy curve, it works for every VDOT, not just 65.4

VDOT-er 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.

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

*********************************************

You're wrong again. Read the text, the line represents every VDOT.

****************************************************

As usual, you are completely wrong on every point.

The answere to your question is simple, compare the distance run in a given time for lower and higher VDOT's the higher numbers are LESS ECONOMICAL. The problem for you is that you don't even understand the issue of economy.

I will take a shot at this one wrote:

Is it the graph in Figure 2 shown in this pdf?

http://www.canibaisereis.com/download/power-of-vdot-daniels.pdf

Do you have the remainder of the article? It indicates at the end of p.4 that the text is continued on p.11, but the pdf ends with the tables on p.6. Thanks.