Question for jtupper or other training pace gurus about determining VDOT

WOW, Ray-san, great post. I love this bit:

Voice of Ray-san wrote:

"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.

Very funny, the Nigel Tuffnel and his: "these go up to eleven" comparison.

The 85 VDOT is like an amp that goes up to eleven.

The reason why it is an unfeasible number is because the best athletes have superior muscular power and endurance.

Think about Bekele's 26.17 100000m, that is 63 seconds per lap. He can run 25 laps at a pace most runners can't hold for 1 lap, faster than most very well trained runners can run for 1 mile. This shows vastly superior neuromuscular coordination than the average very well trained runner. This also means that he can run those 63 second laps with a much better economy than other runners who have the same VO2max as him.

JD's original intention was to show how important running economy is (more efficient use of oxygen).

However, the VDOT numbers contradict this stated intent, becasue, by calculating VDOT from a large nuber of runners of different ability, you get, more or less an average economy, and thus, the higher the VDOT, the less accurate it becomes, because the very best performances are a result of the types of trainig which make those runners' personal economy greatly superior to less well trained, and less highly performing runners.

wellnow wrote:

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.

1. The graph shows only one VDOT value. Not many. All 3 runners have a VDOT of 65.4

Disagree? Prove otherwise. Quote something, for God's sake.

2. The pace charts show no economy numbers at all. None.

3. The only way to say that runner A is less economical than runner B is to measure their economy at a GIVEN SPEED. You are trying to compare them at two different speeds you are comparing apples and oranges.

That's almost as stupid as asking why is runner A less economical when sprinting than he is when jogging.

VDOT-er wrote:

Sorry, sparky. I did read the text. It says no such thing. Not in the article and not in the email that Daniels sent you.

The graph represents exactly one VDOT value. 65.4. At every single place on the graph.

If you dispute this, feel free to quote the section of the text that contradicts it

You really should improve your reading comprehension.

Read this carefully, from the test JD wrote accompanying the graph:

"To summarize, VDOT represents a VO2max which, when associated with a generic economy curve, can be used to

determine how fast you can run a particular race.

In the example shown in Figure 2, our generic economy curve (based on many runners tested over a number of

years) is shown as a bold dashed line. Using this generic economy curve a VDOT value of 65.4 would represent a

3000m time of 9:06, which is pretty close to the average time run by these three subjects."

wellnow wrote:

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

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

Possible, but as there are no labels to indicate vdot values for anything other that 65.4, there's no way of identifying vdot values for any other part of the line, so you would be guessing (y axis is V02, not VDOT, keep that in mind).

VDOT-er wrote:

wellnow wrote:

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.

1. The graph shows only one VDOT value. Not many. All 3 runners have a VDOT of 65.4

Disagree? Prove otherwise. Quote something, for God's sake.

2. The pace charts show no economy numbers at all. None.

3. The only way to say that runner A is less economical than runner B is to measure their economy at a GIVEN SPEED. You are trying to compare them at two different speeds you are comparing apples and oranges.

That's almost as stupid as asking why is runner A less economical when sprinting than he is when jogging.

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

1, All three runners have slightly different times and slightly different economy. The 65.4 doesn't represent ANY OF THEM, but a comparison.

2, The lower nubers have more economical figures than the higher VDOT's, look at the VDOT value and the distance run in a given time. The 80 VDOT doesn't run twice as far as the 40 VDOT.

3, Yes I agree, that is the point I am trying to make, and why I point out that the higher the VDOT, the worse the economy appears to be, which is why the higher nubers are unfeasible.

wellnow wrote:

You really should improve your reading comprehension.

Read this carefully, from the test JD wrote accompanying the graph:

"To summarize, VDOT represents a VO2max which, when associated with a generic economy curve, can be used to

determine how fast you can run a particular race.

In the example shown in Figure 2, our generic economy curve (based on many runners tested over a number of

years) is shown as a bold dashed line. Using this generic economy curve a VDOT value of 65.4 would represent a

3000m time of 9:06, which is pretty close to the average time run by these three subjects."

Don't you get it? The curve is common to many runners, true, all with the same ability level and therefore VDOT - 65.4. (more practically speaking, 65 since his table is not that granular)

Not every runner of every ability in the world.

The dashed line is the "pseudo-economy" curve of any runner with a VDOT value of 65.4. One level of ability

Just at the top graph represents the real economy curve of the runner with a VO2 Max of 73 -- and a VDOT of 65.4

Just as the middle solid line represents the real economy curve of a runner with a VO2 Max of 69 -- and a VDOT of 65.4

Just as the bottom solid line represents the real economy curve of a runner with a VO2 Max of 60 -- and a VDOT of... you guessed it 65.4

One VDOT. Not many. One ability level. Not many

I will take a shot at this one wrote:

wellnow wrote:

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

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

Possible, but as there are no labels to indicate vdot values for anything other that 65.4, there's no way of identifying vdot values for any other part of the line, so you would be guessing (y axis is V02, not VDOT, keep that in mind).

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

Yes, y axis is VO2, and the x axis is vVO2max, so the mathematical relationship of the y axis to the x axis, IS VDOT.

The dashed line represents every VDOT value from 35 to 70,

Bear in mind though, that the graph is not drawn accurately, becasue the main purpose of the graph is to show the 3 runners' different aerobic profiles plus the common economy curve, and fitting all that information onto the graph reguired a certain artistic liscence which a nitpicking draughtsman might not appreciate.

VDOT-er I told you to study the graph carefully and read the text carefully. YOU DIDN'T DO THAT.

You keep messing up and ranting like a lunatic. I told you a few days ago to stop doing this and pay attention.

You are still NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

Do you have learning difficulties or some sort of psychosis?

STUDY THE GRAPH CAREFULLY AND READ THE TEXT CAREFULLY.

Don't be pedantic. He chose 3 runners who could do ABOUT the same time in a 3000. Did you expect him to find 3 peopel with EXACTLY the same 3000 meter time? One might actually be 65.7, one might be 65.3.

For sake of comparison they are all running the same 3000 meter time, they are all at the same ability level and all have the same VDOT of 65.4.

At every single place on the graph, their VDOTs remain the same. Just as at every single place on the graph their VO2 max values remain the same.

The lower numbers represent people running slower.

If you agree why do you keep comparing runners at different speeds?

wellnow wrote:

and the x axis is vVO2max, .

Wrong. How can you get something so easy to read wrong?

The X axis is velocity. Straight up velocity. Not velocity a VO2 Max.

You keep screaming at me to read the graph and you can't even read it yourself.

Read the text, the x axis is labelled as velocity in m/min but it refers to velocity at VO2max, read the text.

When are you going to pay attention?

wellnow wrote:

Yes, y axis is VO2, and the x axis is vVO2max, so the mathematical relationship of the y axis to the x axis, IS VDOT.

The dashed line represents every VDOT value from 35 to 70,

No it does not. That's where you go wrong.

The dashed line does NOT represent every VDOT value from 35 to 70.

It represents the pseudo ("average" since you love that word) economy of any runner who can run a 3000 meter race in about 9:06.

One ability level, wellnow. One. Not many. Therefore one VDOT value.

A runner who could run the 3000 in, say, 8:00 would be represented by a completely different dashed line. That's why the X-axis is just velocity and not velocity at VO2 Max

wellnow wrote:

Yes, y axis is VO2, and the x axis is vVO2max, so the mathematical relationship of the y axis to the x axis, IS VDOT.

The dashed line represents every VDOT value from 35 to 70,

Bear in mind though, that the graph is not drawn accurately, becasue the main purpose of the graph is to show the 3 runners' different aerobic profiles plus the common economy curve, and fitting all that information onto the graph reguired a certain artistic liscence which a nitpicking draughtsman might not appreciate.

just a sec, the relationship of vdot, v02max and pace is a pseudo-relationship, not a 'real' one. Part of the problem here, you're interpreting the scaling of vdot as being bound to 'averages' for representative groups. So you look at it like vdot means vV02max for the average v02max of runners at the vdot level.

It's not. Nowhere does Daniels say this, and despite your insistance otherwise, he nevers says so in the email he sent you either.

Ray-san said it best in his post. The vdot tables are developed around the theory of 'normal' (not 'average') economy. In other words, a person of 'normal' economy with a v02max of this value has a vV02max of this value.

I would hardly expect the scaling of vdot to be linear, I would not expect them to be directly proportional, and I would absolutely expect pace increases to diminish as vdot increases. This does no imply that 'economy' diminishes as vdot increases, nor that runners of a higher vdot values have 'less' economy...not at all. It does imply that the increases in overhead for faster pacing increases non-linearly as pace increases.

At the higher vdot values, actual runners at those levels would, of course, have much better economy than those at lower levels (or more correctly, the average economy of runners at high vdots is much better than those at lower vdot levels), because only runners with very good economy could even achieve those paces at those distances. This does not alter at all the defintion of 'normal' economy, because normal is not meant to be an average at any given vdot value.

As ray-san said, even modifying the scale to follow averages, it wouldn't solve the psychological issue(s) you noted, for the simple reason that the lower vdots representing sub elites would have to scaled as well, and thus the issues you have a problem with would still be there. The other problems with averages is that the tables would need maintenance to keep up with changing numbers, and that's simply unrealistic.

And in the end, none of that would change the value and usage of vdot tables as a training tool, not one iota.

No, you are the one who is wrong. Take a couple of days to think about this and study the graph and the text:

"To summarize, VDOT represents a VO2max which, when associated with a generic economy curve, can be used to

determine how fast you can run a particular race.

In the example shown in Figure 2, our generic economy curve (based on many runners tested over a number of

years) is shown as a bold dashed line. Using this generic economy curve a VDOT value of 65.4 would represent a

3000m time of 9:06, which is pretty close to the average time run by these three subjects."

The dashed line represents how far any runner can run in 9.06 with a VDOT from 35 to 70.

Take a couple of days to study and think about this, the dashed line is the common economy curve, not one value, but the 65.4 is shown also to compare the three runners.

The irony of this is that if we were to allow you your (incorrect) assertion and all pretend that the dashed line was for all runners of all ability levels, it would completely contradict your point about economy and VDOT

You said that economy goes down as VDOT goes up. But if you turn that graph into the generic economy curve for every runner of every ability level, then every single runner in the world of every single ability level would match up to the same exact Y-value (volume of oxygen consumed) for any given speed (X-value).

Meaning they would consume the exact same amount of oxygen at any given speed.

Meaning they would have exactly the same economy.

So how does economy go down as VDOT goes up again?

Think about Bekele's 26.17 100000m, that is 63 seconds per lap. He can run 25 laps at a pace most runners can't hold for 1 lap, faster than most very well trained runners can run for 1 mile. This shows vastly superior neuromuscular coordination than the average very well trained runner. [/quote]

Wellnow,

I don't understand this statement at all. I can't see why it means anything except he can run 25 laps at a pace most runners can't hold for 1 lap. Why is it because of neuromuscular coordination? Why would Bekele's neuromuscular coordination be "vastly superior"...so much so that well-trained runners can't keep up with him for 1 lap. It's not like he does training that no one else does.

Maybe you define "neuromuscular coordination" different than I would.

I enjoy reading your posts...as adversarial and irrational as they may be. Though I must admit it would be nice if you would ditch your own dogma once in a while.

Sincerely...

Wellnow=douche

VDOT-er wrote:

The irony of this is that if we were to allow you your (incorrect) assertion and all pretend that the dashed line was for all runners of all ability levels, it would completely contradict your point about economy and VDOT

You said that economy goes down as VDOT goes up. But if you turn that graph into the generic economy curve for every runner of every ability level, then every single runner in the world of every single ability level would match up to the same exact Y-value (volume of oxygen consumed) for any given speed (X-value).

Meaning they would consume the exact same amount of oxygen at any given speed.

Meaning they would have exactly the same economy.

So how does economy go down as VDOT goes up again?

You can read the graph either way, that is: relate the VO to pace (more or less vVO2max) as VDOT for every runner (the common economy curve), or as an individual economy with the VO being sub max data for pace. The mathematical relationships are based on the common economy curve.

My point about the higher numbers being less economic comes from the fact that faster runners do not run further in a given time in proportion to their VDOT. So the 80 VDOT runner doesn't go twice as far as the 40 VDOT runner, it is somewhat less than that.

My question is why? I believe I know the answer, but what do you think it might be?

PTF wrote:

Think about Bekele's 26.17 100000m, that is 63 seconds per lap. He can run 25 laps at a pace most runners can't hold for 1 lap, faster than most very well trained runners can run for 1 mile. This shows vastly superior neuromuscular coordination than the average very well trained runner.

Wellnow,

I don't understand this statement at all. I can't see why it means anything except he can run 25 laps at a pace most runners can't hold for 1 lap. Why is it because of neuromuscular coordination? Why would Bekele's neuromuscular coordination be "vastly superior"...so much so that well-trained runners can't keep up with him for 1 lap. It's not like he does training that no one else does.

Maybe you define "neuromuscular coordination" different than I would.

I enjoy reading your posts...as adversarial and irrational as they may be. Though I must admit it would be nice if you would ditch your own dogma once in a while.

Sincerely...[/quote]

Are you asking me a question, or telling me that my answer is wrong before you even know what it is? Don't be such a cynic. Typical letrun attitude. I'm glad Ritz ran 12.56 maybe it will shut a few of you clowns up for a while.