Question for jtupper or other training pace gurus about determining VDOT

Tinman, can you explain motor neural inhibition please?[/quote]

--------------------

wellnow:

I have a book buried in one of many plastic containers in my garage. I am hesistant to look for it because I might be there all afternoon. However, the edited book has reports from several top physiology studies on muscles in it. I bought it in the 1980's from Human Kinetics Publishers. Certain studies of muscle activation of motor units revealed the preloading influenced voluntary contractions. That is, exercising intensely for short periods positively influenced measured voluntary force of lower limbs. Example: Group #1 subjects were able to extend 100 lbs ten times during a leg extension exercise, with no prior exercise. Group #2 subjects performed 110 lbs for 10 repetitions following preloading exercise such as 4 reps at 85% of best 1 rep maximum, followed by 5 minutes of rest. The groups were switched 3 days later for retesting; thus group #1 did preloading and group #2 did no preloading (pre-exercise). The results were stable, in terms of the benefits of preloading. The conclusion: Performing intense but brieft exercise of similar type as the (later) measured activity was beneficial in terms of sustained weight subjects could use for 10 repetitions.

Other studies showed similar (generalized) results, but the studies had different design and particulars.

Just 5 minutes ago I typed in "neuromuscle inhibition" in scholar.google.com and found an interesting study worth reviewing:

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/6/2249

Take a look!

Cheers,

Tinman

I just took at look at some of the other cited studies on the link I provided. The one that follows here also shows the neural inhibition is reduced - by strength training - in antagonist muscles. Thus, resistance training for one msucle group (the dorsi-flexors of the ankle, which force the foot toward the frontal side of the knee) reduced antagonist (opposite side) contraction of the soleus. The generalization, therefore, one might make is this: specific resistance training has a positive effect on voluntarily contracting muscles as well as the corelated antagonist muscle(s). In terms of performance development, then, one might suggest that high intensity exercise, which is specific to a goal actitivity, improves performance from both direct and indirect means; influecing the muscles that create "drive" force/power and their corresponding inhibitory muscles.

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/3/915

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. 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'.

I just answered your direct questions with direct answers, going through the motions of your suggested "simple exercise", to help me see what you mean by "higher VDOT scores imply lower economy". If we talk about VDOT, we can only talk about the "generic" economy curve, which is the same for everyone in the ideal world of VDOT.

If that's "missing the point", then maybe the problem is rooted in the questions. VDOT values are as feasible as the times that produce them. Running a 5K in 12:37 is unfeasible for nearly everyone, with a handful of exceptions, regardless of what you claim must be the correct VDOT for that effort.

I can't see any flaw in the calculations, because you have not shown any. Any alleged flaw requires linking individual VDOT values to individual VO2max values, which is, in itself, flawed. Furthermore, if you insist on making this link, for the sake of argument, you have not shown any data that shows any statistically interesting deviation exists for elite athletes. You only give a rationale which supports a speculative hypothesis.

You simply want everyone to make the jump with you from speculative hypothesis, to foregone conclusion, without actually showing your work. If I were your math teacher, you would get no credit.

Running races faster simply produce higher VDOT scores. But VDOT won't tell you if it comes from VO2max, trainability of economy, shorter ground contact times, muscle strength, tendon elasticity, or anything else. It cannot, since it is a simple function directly derived from time and distance. VDOT only tells you that you ran a specific race distance faster, and that you have the potential to run other race distances faster.

The flaw is attempting to say more than that. This becomes obvious once you master how VDOT tables were derived, and how they are calculated from race performances.

I was just wondering, if both VDOT values above 85, and VO2max values above 85, have already been achieved and exceeded, what can "A VDOT of 85 is unfeasible" possibly mean? Perhaps "unfeasible" is simply the wrong word.

I agree with "malmo" completely, and appreciate his satire. Of course we all know by now VDOT is not VO2max. VDOT is based on real performance and real velocity, while VO2max is based on aerobic mythology.

Hmmm, using "velocity" instead of "oxygen". Using performance time in races to predict other race performances. Sounds like VDOT!

Of course, as we all know, VO2max is not VDOT.

Thanks for the warning.

"VDOT-er" answered the first part well -- I wouldn't train athletes with two different performances the same way, regardless of their VO2max.

Of course, I should say I don't train anyone but myself, and I wouldn't use VO2max values as part of any VDOT training plan. As should be obvious by now, many runners can have the same VO2max, but their VDOTS can vary widely, as should their optimal training paces.

This is perhaps the root of the misconception that bears repeating. Measured VO2max values plays a surprisingly small role (if at all) in the derivation of VDOT.

VDOT was derived from economy curves, linking measured sub-max VO2 consumption to measured velocity. During data collection, VO2max would simply serve as a marker to show at what point to stop collecting data. We can not define a curve with a single data point. VO2max is neither sufficient, nor required, to describe economy.

For the same race performance, VO2max values can vary widely, while VDOT is stable. This is because velocity correlates better to performance than oxygen consumption.

The point I am making is simple: VDOT was calcuated from average figures of many runners. The higher VDOT values were extrapolated from these average figures. Thus, the whole purpose of the VDOT tables was compromised by the inference that elite runners have extremely high VO2max values.

Thanks Tinman. I do a variety of jumping exercises before some of my runs. Sometimes, the results are amazing, I can run extremely fast, but I am hardly breathing. If I can work out which exercises are most beneficial, how long to do them, when to do them etc.......I have been doing this in a hit and miss way for 12 years, so by a process of elimition, hopefully I can come up with some definitive answers about which explosive exercises work best for me and for others.

wellnow wrote:

The point I am making is simple: VDOT was calcuated from average figures of many runners. The higher VDOT values were extrapolated from these average figures. Thus, the whole purpose of the VDOT tables was compromised by the inference that elite runners have extremely high VO2max values.

Your point is too simple:

- When you are not mistaken, all you have is speculative hypothesis. You speculate there is an error somewhere, even boldly suggesting that a VDOT of 85 should be 80, but provide us no error function, no sample size, no statistical correlation, no analysis, no links to an analysis, no basis at all that provides any support for such a provocative position. You only provide a rationale that since a value is extrapolated, it must be wrong.

- You mistate the purpose of VDOT tables. With VDOT values, we can only talk about a "pseudo-VO2max" for a "generic" economy, with respect to a given performance. We can not infer "VO2max" values, nor can we talk about the "trainability of economy". We know "pseudo" means "not real", and we know "generic" is not "specific". What can possibly make "not real" and "generic" any less real and less specific for elite athletes?

- VDOT tables do not infer high or low VO2max values. Ever. For anyone. Ever. They describe a real high or low velocity, for a race distance, or infer a predicted high or low velocity, for another race distance. Therefore, the whole purpose of VDOT tables can not compromised by any non-existent inference of high VO2max values.

As stated by Daniels (in DRF and in the PDF), the VDOT tables were created to provide a better performance predictor than VO2max, because VO2max is a bad performance predictor, but race velocity is a better one.

To show that the "generic" economy formula is wrong for elite athletes, you must show us data and analysis.

To show that the VDOT tables are worse predictors of performance for elite ahtletes, you must show us data and analysis.

You discard VDOT tables for failing to meet a purpose it was not designed to meet, with no real scientific basis. It may be harsh, but I expect more from someone who claims to combat pseudo-science. I expect a little more accuracy, and a little more substance. You can not hold Daniels to a higher standard when you fall so far short.

Why did you ignore the data of those elite athletes with a relatively low VO2max? That was disingeuous.

Can you ignore this study?:

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/211/20/3266

Can you ignore the fact that the higher figures were extrapolations of the average figures?

Why have the conceit of the VDOT calculations, implying that Daniels and Gilbert really developed a valuable formula for predicting pace? Based on what? other times from other races? Anyone can draw up such a chart based on whatever spurious calculations they decide are relevant. But that doesn't mean the chart will be accurate, relevant or worthwhile.

I don't think wellnow will ever understand that VDOT is not V02Max. He will continue to bring up points that are completely irrelevent as a result.

You're avoiding the issue, that VDOT overstates the importance of VO2max and understates the importance of economy.

You are forgetting the facts. It does no such thing.

You aren't even aware of the facts.

We've been going over them for 16 pages now. I simply lack your capacity to ignore them.

Seriously, is this how it works with you? I thought I was kidding when I said you were from the "repeat myself until you agree with me" school of debate but clearly, that hit very close to the mark. When pinned down on every point, you simply go back to the beginning and re-state the completely unsupported thesis.

Brilliant. You are looking for a contest of gainsaying now? Why not? I'm your huckleberry.

How do you stand now on the question of how fast a runner with a VO2max of under 70 can run over 5000m?

I think the World Record for that distance will one day be below 12 minutes, and the runner who does it might have a V02max of below 70 or as high as 90. The important issue is the relative economy of the runner, and in this matter, the energy stored and released in the achiles tendon is a crucial factor. The faster you run, the more energy you can store. However, there is another issue here, when the foot is on the ground, an extra push can provide extra energy storage and release. Are you interested in that?

I also can believe the world record will be below 12 minutes, though perhaps not in our lifetimes. As to whether a runner with a VO2 max that low can run that fast, It seems unlikely -- he certainly would probably not be the first[/b\ person to run that fast, if only because he's handicapped in one of the tools that contributes to fast running -- but I of course believe it possible.

In the end the fastest runner is going to be one with all the tools -- including the great economy AND the great oxygen utilization capacity.

(reposted with emphasis corrected)

I also can believe the world record will be below 12 minutes, though perhaps not in our lifetimes. As to whether a runner with a VO2 max that low can run that fast, It seems unlikely -- he certainly would probably not be the first person to run that fast, if only because he's handicapped in one of the tools that contributes to fast running -- but I of course believe it possible.

In the end the fastest runner is going to be one with all the tools -- including the great economy AND the great oxygen utilization capacity.

Like I said, you don't understand economy.

I'm not being rude or arrogant, I've been trying to explain this to you for several weeks, but it's not getting through to you, because you are brainwashed. Please read the article about heel length again.

This is my favorite part:

wellnow wrote:

I'm not being rude or arrogant,

Priceless.

I've been trying to explain this to you for several weeks, but it's not getting through to you, because you are brainwashed. Please read the article about heel length again.

Why, are the words going to change?

Let's review:

1. Daniels invents VDOT

(Just in case people missed that, lets repeat -- Daniels INVENTS VDOT. Please keep this part in mind when reading the next 3 points)

2. Daniels says VDOT is A. You say it is B

3. Daniels says the purpose of VDOT is A, you say, no no no, it is B.

4. Daniels says you don't undertand it, you say he is being "sarcastic".

"Facts" are fun when you get to make them up yourself. But no, you aren't being arrogant or anything.