Question for jtupper or other training pace gurus about determining VDOT

Thanks Mike. But one thing I gotta tell ya, you had more speed than Bekele. What he got is the ability to hold his top speed or close to it for hundreds of meters at the end of a fast race.

I may have had better top speed, but not by much. Bekele certainly is capable of sub 50 400.

His terminal velocity notwithstanding, having done strides with numerous sub 13:20 runners and even sub 13:00, they all have a very fluid very fast running ability. My 12 second 100 meters looks like a sprinter(not good distance form), their 12 second 100 meters looks like an extension of their racing form.

The point is: These guys know how to move their bodies in a fast, efficient manner; and, they are tiny...a deadly combo.

Largely, we are in agreement, save the last 5 tenths of a second of our estimation of Bekele's top end.

wellnow wrote:

VDOT tables are based on an average of all the runners tested. So in effect they exaggerate the importance of VO2max and under value the importance of economy, simply because better trained runners' superior economy cannot be represented by the common economy curve.

If the VDOT tables had been calculated from actual performance whereby runners had been rated according to their performance and split into a number of sample groups of differing abilities with the same number of runners in each group, then you would get a truer picture of how the trainable component of economy affects performance.

wellnow,

If the VDOT tables were calculated with data from black hole measurements, Daniels could have rediscovered relativity. Let's not forget the main and only purpose of "Performance tables for Distance Runners" is to compare performance, not VO2max or economy.

You keep insisting that a fundamental purpose of VDOT tables is to show the importance of economy. The development of the VDOT formula was explained in a book partially titled "Performance tables for distance runners". It's difficult for me to see how an index which combines VO2max and economy, into a single result, can subsequently be re-factored back into their individual components for a proper discussion. VDOT tables may factor into larger research, which includes research about economy, and related supplemental measurements of oxygen, but the VDOT tables themselves end up concealing these two factors from the rest of the world, by combining them into a single index.

In the worst case, such an exaggeration of VO2max and under-valuation of superior economy (if it exists at all, which I address below), would simply result in a "skew" of VDOT values, as compared to the corresponding VO2max values, for elite athletes with superior economy. This "skew" of VDOT values away from VO2max values is not important, as we all know by now, that VDOT is not VO2max. Some adjustments must be made for athletes at all levels, not only elite levels, and it requires measuring VO2max separately. And any errors, positive or negative, in the pseudo-VO2max get cancelled out by the inverse error in generic-economy, for athletes at all levels, including elite. As I've said before, the importance of VDOT tables comes from things like predicting marathon times from 10K times, and finding adequate training paces for different workouts. Is VDOT a worse predictor of different events for elites than for the Average Joe? It seems to work reasonably well for Geb (VDOT for 10K: 84, VDOT for marathon: 83). Is there a trend that gets worse for elite athletes?

Second, and I repeat, we can not make any statements about individual VO2max or economy with the VDOT tables, until we measure the oxygen consumption of the athletes in question. However, if we do make regular laboratory VO2max measurements (say once a year), and compare this to the VDOTs from race results, this provides the truest picture you can get, of the role that VO2max plays, and how this trainable component of ecomony improves in the long term.

Now let's take a closer look at VDOT, and it's relationship to the VO2max and economies of the runners tested.

To correctly understand what is exaggerated, or not, we should look again at one of the formulas for computing VDOT (*):

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

This formula is a curve fit which attempts to estimate the rate of oxygen consumed (ml per kg per min), as a function of velocity (meters per minute).

Immediately, you may notice two things:

- We speak of VO2, and not VO2max.

- The oxygen calculation is a function of velocity. Velocity is the end result of VO2max and economy. That is, VO2max and economy are both equally represented.

So as a consequence:

- We do not speak of a simple average of the VO2max of the few runners tested, to arrive at a "pseudo-VO2max" meant to be the mean of all runners at that ability. VDOT is not meant to be a mean, or an average of VO2max values for all runners.

- We do not speak of VO2max at all! The VO2max of the runners tested were not inputs into the curve fit.

- We speak of measuring runners oxygen consumption, and their velocity, and making a curve fit of that data.

Now just like you, I will make some of my own presumptions:

- I presume that a meaningful sample size was used.

- We speak of testing done in a university environment. Presumably a significant number of the subjects tested were experienced athletes competing for the University, at a high level. Indeed three of the girls tested scored a VDOT of 65.4 -- not elite values, but certainly respectable and representative of mature and well-developed athletes.

- Presumably, the subjects covered a significantly broad range of abilities that include low velocities and high velocities.

- Low velocities would be the result of athletes with a low VO2max and/or low economy.

- Higher velocities would be the result of athletes with a high VO2max and and/or high economy.

- There would be a trend or correlation, as the velocity goes from slow to fast, of an improving economy. This trend of improving economy would continue beyond the range of subjects measured, and with luck, as far as VDOTs of 85 and beyond, depending on the representativity of the subjects tested.

In other words,

- The importance of VO2max is not exaggerated. First because VO2max was not even used directly as an input, when creating the VDOT table, and second, because velocity is the result of VO2max and economy. Both elements are represented indirectly, in the outcome of velocity.

- The superior economy of elite athletes would be represented by a curve that captures a trend of increased economy with increased velocity.

To conclude otherwise ultimately requires real data:

- details that the sample size of runners tested was too small, or their range of abilities too narrow to be representative of the whole population, or that they demonstrably had a well-developed VO2max, and an under-developed economy.

- a significant sample of data from elite athletes that shows such a curve fit no longer represents elite athletes.

I presume you do not have any real data, just some hunches, speculations, and hypotheses.

I also presume that the 30-year success of Daniel's Running Formula speaks for itself.

(*) There is a second formula for computing percentage of VO2max as a function of time, but this doesn't seem to be a likely source of error for the purpose of this discussion. Presumably economy is about going faster with the same amount of oxygen. I find it interesting for other reasons, but that may be another discussion for another time.

Ray-san, the economy of elite athletes is not represented by extrapolating the common economy curve, and to address this issue you wrote:

"The superior economy of elite athletes would be represented by a curve that captures a trend of increased economy with increased velocity."

I agree. However, when you say:

"The importance of VO2max is not exaggerated. First because VO2max was not even used directly as an input, when creating the VDOT table, and second, because velocity is the result of VO2max and economy. Both elements are represented indirectly, in the outcome of velocity."

You should be aware that sub max data was used in the calculations, which relate to VO2max. Also economy has two main components, just as VO2max and sub max do, those two components being of course genetics and training. Although of course VO2max is also related to body fat percentage.

The VDOT table cannot represent changes in fitness as Daniels claims because the realitve values are based on a formula, which homogenizes fitness with the common economy curve, and does not adress the trainability of economy, hence the unfeasible numbers, and not just the nubers over 80. The numbers over 60 are also incompatible with the trainabilty of economy.

In conclusion, I find the VDOT concept to be pretentious nonsense, pseudoscientific conceit etc

A discussion of the genetics and trainability of economy would be worthwhile. And that's what I have tried to do in this thread.

wellnow wrote:

does not adress the trainability of economy

And why should it do this?

I think where we disagree (in this thread anyway) is simply the purpose of VDOT.

Let me make a much shorter post, from the point of view where we agree.

I agree with you that the VDOT tables fails to address all these other points you'd like to make about economy, changes in fitness, trainability, etc. My point is it's not supposed to. I don't expect these things from a lookup table of performances, and it just seems to me you are rejecting VDOT for the wrong reasons.

In DRF, although there is a chapter which attempts to relate VDOT to VO2max and economy, I was almost surprised to realize how disconnected VDOT was from an athlete's real VO2max and economy. The rest of the book is about how to structure your training based on the performance tables and loads of other useful practical tips, like how quickly to come back from injury, or how to structure 10 weeks of training when you don't have 26 weeks.

For me, you could rescale the VDOT tables to Purdy points, or Hungarian tables, or use McMillan's calculator, and delete the chapter on VO2max (that's me again -- always deleting the chapter on physiology from a training book), and DRF would not lose it's practical value for training.

I could even agree the worthwile discussion of genetics and trainability of economy, just not in a thread called "Question for jtupper about VDOT"

A side point about the feasibility of 85:

Wilson Kipketer scores a VDOT of 87.

Usain Bolt scores a VDOT of 118! (OK it's for distance runners only -- but interesting to me anyway).

Here are some high VO2maxes (taken from the letsrun archive, for what that's worth):

92.5 Greg LeMond, professional cyclist

92.0 Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder

88.0 Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist

87.4 Marius Bakken, Norwegian 5k record holder

85 Dave Bedford, 10k world record

84.4 Steve Prefontaine,US runner

A VDOT, or a VO2max of 85 doesn't seem to be all that unfeasable. Maybe there's a better word.

PPS: I'm pretty much finished now. I appreciate what I think I learned about what goes into the VDOT calculation, so in some twisted way, thanks for the opportunity.

PPPS: You'll be excited to know I got a copy of "The Lore of Running" for my birthday. Maybe this will completely challenge my current perception and die-hard acceptance of the aerobic dogma of the 20th century.

It's a BIG book with tiny print (at least there are some pictures). I'm gonna be out for a while digesting that.

Dr. Tim Noakes is working on a new book. He'll go into more detail about the central govenor theory.

One more thing:

If there is a central govenor (brain control), which influences running performance, perhaps one element worth discussing here is motor-neural inhibition (what I generically call MNI).

The questions:

Given the possibility that MNI exists; is MNI changed (through training) dramatically?

How quickly over time?

How much change is possible?

What influences change the most? - what training, i.e.?

Regards,

Tinman

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.

A 40 VDOT runs 3200 meters in 15 minutes.

An 80 VDOT runs 5600 meters in 15 minutes.

They both have the same economy, as in the ideal world of VDOT, they are mapped to the same generic economy curve.

The 40 VDOT consumes 39 ml/kg/min of O2, running 213.33 m/min.

The 80 VDOT consumes 78 ml/kg/min of O2, running 373.33 m/min.

If I understand the point you want to make, you say the 80 VDOT economy is worse, because the 80 VDOT is consuming 2x the oxygen, yet only going 1.75x the distance (or 1.75x the velocity).

Simply put, that's not the right way to look at economy. Economy gives us the mapping from oxygen to velocity. The economy is actually the whole curve (the dashed line), represented by this equation:

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

You can not compare economy with two different velocities, nor is it reasonable to expect a linear increase in velocity with consumption in oxygen. (Actually the generic curve show oxygen increasing quadratically with respect to velocity). I can imagine there are several sources of internal inefficiencies, and someone already mentioned an external one I did not think of - wind resistance.

If our 80 VDOT runner slowed down and ran with the 40 VDOT runner they would both consume the same "generic" amount of oxygen.

If after 10 years of training, our 40 VDOT runner can now run an 80 VDOT, he will consume the same "generic" amount of oxygen.

I just read the PDF file, and it seems to me, there are misunderstandings all around about what the figures mean.

I was pleased to see figures 2 and 3, because they are the graphs of the equations I have been posting all along. Figure 2 shows us the "economy" curve, giving us a mapping of oxygen consumed to velocity.

The graphs Figure 3 is less important (at least for this discussion), but gives us a "correction factor", based on the "time" of the race, which converts "oxygen" on the Y-axis to VDOT.

First to clarify a few things:

- The dashed line is the same generic economy curve for all VDOTS, not just 65.4. If we wanted to match the VDOT table, we would extend the dashed line all the way up to 85 (and farther)

- The Y-axis is the rate of oxygen consumed (and not VDOT)

- The X-axis is velocity, and not vVO2max (it is only vVO2max at around 330 for our 3 ladies).

Graphically speaking, I imagine the creation of the "generic" economy curve like this. Look at the curves A,B,C. The C curve is more economical, because less oxygen is required for the same velocity, at all velocities. Bekele might have a curve like C, but it would not stop at 60, but continue up to his VO2max. The A curve is less economical because more oxygen is required. Each of the curves get truncated at that athlete's measured VO2max. Now imagine hundreds, or thousands (or more) of these curves, each being truncated at the top at that individuals VO2max. The mathematics that was done, was to combine all of these curves into the single generic curve (with the minimum error).

Of course, if we added a 1000 more lines like "C", this would result in a different economy curve, perhaps quite similiar for the range of 30-65, but then progressing more slowly up to 85 and beyond, effectively giving lower VDOT scores to elite performances.

But this only matters if the goal is to make VDOT representative of VO2max (which I don't think is a goal, nor has it been shown that the current VDOT tables are not representative).

If the goal is finding equivalent performances, then it doesn't matter.

Some other points:

Although Daniels computed and printed the tables up to 85, this is by no means the "maximum" VDOT possible. With the equations, the VDOT tables can be computed as high as you want. For example, Kipketer's 800m WR scores a VDOT of 87, and Usain Bolt's WR scores a VDOT of 118. (I know 200m is not distance running, but the equations don't).

The DOT in VDOT (as explained in the PDF) means "rate of consumption per minute". It does not mean "something like VO2max, but not VO2max". Daniels explains that VO2max should be pronounced V-dot-O2max, and interpreted as the maximum rate of oxygen consumption per minute. The name VDOT comes from that.

I've read that post, but you missed a bit:

You're missing the point, you're getting so obsessed with the VDOT calculations that you can't see the wood for the trees. You can't see the flaw in the calculations, they way they have been extrapolated. That's what I'm trying to point out, the higer VDOT values are unfeasible because they don't take the trainability of economy into account. As you read through Noakes writing you will see his reference to the fact that elite performances are related to ground contact time. The shorter the ground contact time of the feet, the faster the pace and vice versa. The way we work our feet is highly trainable, and allows us to greatly improve our economy. Slower runners tend to 'stick to the ground'.

Tinman wrote:

One more thing:

If there is a central govenor (brain control), which influences running performance, perhaps one element worth discussing here is motor-neural inhibition (what I generically call MNI).

The questions:

Given the possibility that MNI exists; is MNI changed (through training) dramatically?

How quickly over time?

How much change is possible?

What influences change the most? - what training, i.e.?

Regards,

Tinman

Tinman, can you explain motor neural inhibition please?

wellnow wrote:

You're missing the point, you're getting so obsessed with the VDOT calculations that you can't see the wood for the trees. You can't see the flaw in the calculations, they way they have been extrapolated. That's what I'm trying to point out, the higer VDOT values are unfeasible because they don't take the trainability of economy into account.

You are being ridiculous now. You can't very well take Daniels to task for his calculations and then turn around and criticize someone for bothering to examine them.

The "flaw" in questions is simply not at all in evidence unless we are to consider your simple empty pronouncements as "evidence".

You seem to be a fan of the "repeat myself until you agree with me" school of debate so here's right back at you: The higher VDOT values definitely take the trainability of economy into account. The higher VDOT values are easily "feasible" because they are nothing more than a performance index.

Voice of Ray-san wrote:

A side point about the feasibility of 85:

Wilson Kipketer scores a VDOT of 87.

Usain Bolt scores a VDOT of 118! (OK it's for distance runners only -- but interesting to me anyway).

Here are some high VO2maxes (taken from the letsrun archive, for what that's worth):

92.5 Greg LeMond, professional cyclist

92.0 Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder

88.0 Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist

87.4 Marius Bakken, Norwegian 5k record holder

85 Dave Bedford, 10k world record

84.4 Steve Prefontaine,US runner.

I find it hilarious that you snapped of that list right there. Here's the next one on the list behind Prefontaine ... a 15:12/30:55 runner.

92.5 Greg LeMond, professional cyclist

92.0 Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder

88.0 Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist

87.4 Marius Bakken, Norwegian 5k record holder

85 Dave Bedford, 10k world record

84.4 Steve Prefontaine,US runner

84.3 "Physiologist in training," 15:12/30:55 runner

*

*

*

79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner

What's "Physiologist in training"'s VDOT kind Sir?

What's "Runningart2004's" VDOT if you please.

If you are using VDOT to train Physiologist in Training the same as Steve Prefontiane or RunningArt2004 the same as Bill Rogers you are a f***ing idiot!

Anyone who subscribes to concept of VDOT, which is fundamentally derived from VO2Max is a fool.

idiot alert wrote:

84.3 "Physiologist in training," 15:12/30:55 runner

*

*

*

79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner

What's "Physiologist in training"'s VDOT kind Sir?

About 70, based off the 10k time, which is the superior of the two performances. (This is simple to look up yourself, you know.)

What's "Runningart2004's" VDOT if you please.

66

If you are using VDOT to train Physiologist in Training the same as Steve Prefontiane or RunningArt2004 the same as Bill Rogers you are a f***ing idiot!

You would NOT train them the same. Daniels certainly wouldn't. They have a much, much lower VDOT than Prefontaine so they would train at slower paces, of course.

I've taken a few Vo2max tests. Along with that 79.4 Vo2max I was tested at 85% ventilatory threshold...which has a strong coorelation with lactate threshold.

You have two runners:

Runner A: 79.4 Vo2max, 85% threshold, 15:43 5k

Runner B: 79.4 Vo2max, 85% threshold, 13:30 5k

Why the difference?

Muscles propel you forward. Runner B is more effecient at turning that potential energy into forward propulsion. Relative strength, power, segmental limb length, wasted motion, etc...all come into play. So in a round about way, wellnow's ankle theory may carry water as it relates to the actual mechanical properties of running.

Alan

Runner B would also have a much higher VDOT and would train at significantly faster paces. They would not train the same