Question for jtupper or other training pace gurus about determining VDOT

That's curious -- to defend your position, you bring in a new term. What do you mean by "fitness"? How are you measuring "fitness"? VDOT is a function of time, distance, and velocity. It depends on "performance", not "fitness". The "generic economy curve" represents all levels of fitness. Like the highlander, with VDOT and economy, "there can be only one!"

But let's assume, for the sake of ending this discussion, that extrapolation is actually required somewhere to come up with the higher VDOTs. I remember, when I studied mathematics, that extrapolation is actually a valid technique, of course if it's not taken too far.

To show an error requires "real" data, not just mere speculation, coupled with a pseudo-rationale. That is, in order to conclude that an extrapolation is not valid, we must actually measure a real value, and compare it to it's predicted value, and discuss whether the magnitude of the difference is relevant or significant.

However, ironically considering your stance on "pseudo-science", you seem to have skipped all that, concluding that extrapolation is a synonym for "incorrect" or "unfeasible".

So what are the predicted values and measured values? Are they a "predicted VDOT", versus a "real, as measured, VDOT"? Well no, for 2 reasons. First a VDOT of 85 is not simply a prediction, but is the *real* VDOT, as defined by the formulas. Secondly, "wellnow" is merely speculating that a new race of econo-Bekele's actually exist, which defy the VDOT models, thanks to their superior economy. "wellnow" has not supplied us with any real data.

So what other values can we be talking about? A "real VDOT" versus a "real VO2max"? I hope not -- it must be clear to everyone by now that VO2max and VDOT are different: VDOT is like VO2max, without all the variability. This means that within the ideal world of VDOT, the pseudo-VO2max, and the generic-economy is not necessarily representative of their highly variable counterparts. This is just as true for a new race of econo-Bekeles, just as it's true for athletes of all abilities, economies, and aerobic capacities.

So "wellnow", please tell me: What is the error between the extrapolated and real values associated with a VDOT of 85, and its related performances? Exactly where is the error? In which term, and which units? How big is it? What is your "true" benchmark which allows you to conclude that a VDOT of 85 should actually be a lower value, like 79-80? Surely you would have all these answers, before accusing someone of "getting the numbers wrong" in a table that seems to have passed the test of time.

Talk about extrapolation! You saw all that, in a study that only modeled an "ankle spring" (and did not measure, for example, "variations in individual peak joint moment"), measured the "ankle height" from photos and simply measured the "VO2", at 16 km/hr of 15 non-elite athletes (only 2 of which possessed sub-30 minute 10Ks), and only finding 56% of the source of economy (with a "height corrected" correlation of 0.87).

For your information, no one in this thread disputed the possibility, especially after the "fuzzy" way you described this "important question" using quasi-quantitative terms like a "relatively low VO2max" and a "high enough" economy. The problem with your use of this study, however important it may or not be in a separate discussion of economy, is that it is simply not relevant as supporting a criticism of the VDOT tables. The VDOT tables neither discriminate, nor reward, a high VO2max or a high economy: run a 12:37 5K, collect your 85 VDOT, regardless if your VO2max is 50, or 100.

Let me remind you again the purpose of VDOT: to provide a better performance predictor than VO2max, and find optimal training paces. There can be no doubt VDOT is a much better performance predictor than VO2max. You indicated before that VDOT is actually a bad predictor; that there are much better predictors than VDOT -- care to back that up with substance? For distance events, VDOT is about as good as it gets. If by "conceit", you mean "well deserved pride" for meeting it's purpose, then I would be inclined to agree with you.

Do you find Lydiard's philosophies in his "table of efforts" that describe the paces for "1/4", "1/2" and "3/4" efforts? You should not criticize VDOT tables for failing to meet criteria it was not designed to meet. VDOT tables, the way you pretend it to be, is pretentious, but that is not a problem of the VDOT tables. VDOT, the way you explain it, and what you expect from it, simply doesn't make any sense -- but again, that is not a problem of the VDOT tables.

Ray-san, you are perhaps over egging the pudding?A simple explanation will suffice methinks:

jtupper wrote:

Certainly economy varies, and certainly for various biomechanical reasons, and for variations in weight distribution and tendon attachments, bone length variations, etc. I guess we should have used a different term for VDOT, maybe we should call it a PU (performance unit). In any case, that PU is associated with how fast anyone can run any particular distance (particularly in the range of 1500 to marathon).

wellnow wrote:

VDOT overstates the importance of VO2max and understates the importance of economy.

The very existence of VDOT tables is a tacit admission:

- that VO2max is not as important as previously thought for predicting performance

- the problems with VO2max variability can easily be fixed by factoring in economy (which factors out, by cancellation, the variability of VO2max)

So, VDOT tables actually downplayed the importance of VO2max, and introduced economy into the game. Given this brief history of the reasons for the very existence and success of the VDOT tables, exactly how can you conclude the opposite of reality? Again.

[quote]wellnow wrote:

Ray-san, you are perhaps over egging the pudding?

A simple explanation will suffice methinks:

[quote]

A simple explanation?!? -- Who knew?

Imagine a 5000/10000 runner with a very high VO2max, lets call him Kenenisa. How can he outperform other runners with a similar VO2max and other runners with a much lower VO2max but extremely good economy?

Kenenisa must train so that his economy is better than others with a similar VO2max and maybe develop a killer kick to outperform anyone left in the last lap?

wellnow wrote:

A simple explanation will suffice methinks:

Me thinks wellnow has conceded?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Me thinks wellnow has conceded?

Maybe sorta. He's at least starting to see that VDOT won't reflect any individuals economy nor v02max (as in his example using Kenenisa). He still seems confused over why, but it seems due to being stuck on the 'vdot=v02max', or at least 'vdot=average v02max' mindset that he has.

fun to watch, tho.

I enjoyed reading JD's post on Saturday.

I will never be a believer in mathematical formulae for predicting race times or training times.

I would like to discuss the biomechanical issues pertaining to running economy, because this is a very imporatant coaching issue.

wellnow wrote:

I enjoyed reading JD's post on Saturday.

I will never be a believer in mathematical formulae for predicting race times or training times.

I would like to discuss the biomechanical issues pertaining to running economy, because this is a very imporatant coaching issue.

That's fine, I agree that it is an interesting topic.

You should start a new thread as it is not related to VDOT.

No head in the sandman, you are missing the point as usual.

and, when all else fails, just claim the others don't understand you

It's really very simple, there is a huge genetic variation in VO2max and economy, and it would seem a large variation in the trainability of economy. I have explained that enough. Whatever you interpret is up to you, I can't communicate with you if you have already made up your mind about what you think makes an outstanding athlete.

If it were an aspect of Vdot to address reasons for economy, you would have a point. However, this isn't an aspect of Vdot.

Question concerning weight loss and running economy.

If my body uses Xml of oxygen per kg to run 1km in 5min, then if I maintain the oxygen consumption but drop the total kg's then the time to run the 1km will also reduce? So if I dropped my weight 10% and maintained the same level of "fitness" (in other words maintained my MaxVO2) then my time per km should also reduce by 10% because my body is not more economical? Kinda like a flatbed truck having better fuel economy when running empty then with a big load.

Is this a linear relationship, 1% weight loss = 1% improvement in pace?

Depends on the weight loss. Remember there is an absolute VO2 value and a relative VO2 value. The absolute one is related to how much muscle mass is involved in the activity and the relative value is more important for carrying your body mass from point A to point B. If you lose fat and no muscle, then absolute stays the same and relative increases (along with better performance). However, if loss of weight is muscle, then absolute goes down and dividing that by a lower total mass may not result in any increase in the relative value, or the associated performance. (reducing the weight of a car may not lead to better mileage if the engine power is also reduced) -- probably a poor comparison, but maybe suggesting that one of my runners had an absolute VO2max of 6000ml and another's absolute value was only 4500ml, yet both ran the same time for 5K (because the latter weighed 35 pounds less than the former), will make the point.

Ninetonite wrote:

Is this a linear relationship, 1% weight loss = 1% improvement in pace?

Generally no, runners don't improve in such a linear way. However if you get the training right, then you should notice more or less a 1% imporovement in pace for a 1% weight loss. To achieve this you have to learn longer stride at every intensity, and break away from the habit of doing the same old training.

Imagine a 180 pound runner who does 18.00 for 5k. If he loses 30 pounds, does he run 15.00? More likely, the average runner would run closer to 16. So why is he more economical when he is 180 compared to when he is 150? I think it is a biomechanical issue. In order to get the same economy when we lose the extra pounds, we have to change our foot work in a way which is very subtle.

I just figured carting around fewer pounds of fat would make it easier to maintain a hard pace. Seems like I am right on pace for the first mile of a 5km and then die over the last 2/3. This is in spite of being able to handle the track work (5 X 1km @ 4:12 with 2:45 rest or 6 X 800m in 3:21 with 2min rest) but I raced in perfect conditions a 21:50 as hard as I could go. I'm 5'11" and 189. In college fighting weight was 152.

Every lost weight is the result in water lost first and fat tissue and only further up muscle lost.

Less than 7-8 percent of the total weight lost isn’t muscle lost.

The muscle lost is always some percent of the total weight lost and you may observe near the same muscle percent lost for the same percent of the total weight lost.

Someone lost 35 pounds. How much is muscle just depends how much is the 35 pounds lost from the total weight lost percent.

Every lost weight is the result in water lost first and fat tissue and only further up muscle lost.

Less than 7-8 percent of the total weight lost isn’t muscle lost.

The muscle lost is always some percent of the total weight lost and you may observe near the same muscle percent lost for the same percent of the total weight lost.

Someone lost 35 pounds. How much is muscle just depends how much is the 35 pounds lost from the total weight lost percent.

None of that makes any sense.