Question for jtupper or other training pace gurus about determining VDOT

Jack, here is the study I mentioned a few months ago:

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

Of course, they jumped to the conclusion that they had found the answer to distance running talent.

The research above may possible point to the reason why some runners have better economy, not just better oxygen economy but better running economy per se (better aerobic AND aerobic economy)

Runners who don't have this trait may compensate with a larger development of the left ventricle of the heart which is associated with a higher VO2 max.

To say that either trait is more desirable is most likely not true. Also, it seems unlikely that anyone has both traits, but many will have a mixture.

Chicken vs Egg...

Be careful Jon, you're going to give the Cardiovascular-Anaerobic Model theorists (credit to Tim Noakes) a coronary with your talk about biomechanics and the working muscles. God forbid they actually contract and propel us forward without getting permission.

I see how this thread is going...I'll grab my popcorn.

Alan

OK, help me understand you. Which statement is more meaningful to you:1) I can run a 5K in 14:55, which gives me a VDOT of 70, which means I can probably run a 10K in 31:00.2) I can run a 5K in 14:55, which gives me a VDOT of 65, which means I can probably run a 10K in 31:00.The VDOT tables are designed to:- equate race performances across all distances- help you find appropriate optimal/conservative workout paces for different workoutsThis is true, regardless of your running economy.VDOT tables are "economy-neutral". This is because economy is factored out by design, willfully, on-purpose, in order to simplify its use and aid understanding. They neither support nor contradict running-economy research. This is true even if they both come from the same man.The number in the first column of the VDOT tables is the least important one in the table. How the VDOT index rises, with respect to training and performance is not important, and certainly not a basis to claim it is fundamentally flawed.

wellnow wrote:

You hit the nail on the head when you said:

"Why does mapping an arbitrary index of 80 to 12:37 make more sense to you than an index of 85?"

Because the linking of a specific pace to a VDOT is arbitrary.

The problem with the VDOT tables is that they are based on a linear rise in VDOT. This completely contradicts the notion of training to improve running economy, which is the central tenet of Dr Daniels' research.

A primer on Jon Orange.

Ok, here it is:

1) Jon has seized on the report that Derek Clayton had a VO2max of 69.xx (at one point in time). It was probably near the time that he ran his 2:08 and 2:09 marathons.

2) Jon likes this notion very much because (for him) it somehow lends credence to his idea that it isn't mitochondrial density or size, or your capillarization, or your percentage of ST or FT fibers that determine your distance running destiny ... OH NO, that my friends is determined by .... wait for it ... according to Jon ... your RUNNING ECONOMY. This trait is developed (according to Jon) by practicing running at your intended pace as much as possible, or MORE than is really possible to hear Jon tell it.

i.e. a 2:05 marathoner would want to run 4:45 mile pace for as many hours a week or a day that he could.

Nevermind that a 2:05 marathoner may also BE or want to be a 26:30 10k runner and that would mean he could never actually be training "correctly" for said 10k pace under Jon's model, not to mention goals at 5k or 3k. This is just something you are supposed to swallow because Jon has all the answers and you need to accept this because Jon ran a 5:40 mile as a teen and he is vastly faster now at age 40+, so fast in fact that he has run 2:40 for the marathon after age 40. This feat has made him a Master of the Universe in distance running theory.

3) He believes that if Derek Clayton has a VO2max of 69.x and the highest recorded figure is, say 82.9, well then THERE HAS TO BE a spectrum of figures from ~69-83 that will result in a 5k best of 12:37.

What is wrong with this picture? Derek Clayton never ran 12:37. Derek Clayton never ran 13:37. I haven't looked at those VDOT tables in a while, but I am sure that a VDOT of 85 and 5k of 12:37 is not associated with a marathon of 2:08:34. It is likely 2:03-04. Therefore Derek Clayton's VO2max has as much to do with labelling a 12:37 5k with an 85 VDOT as a runner's height does (none!).

That is the first flaw in his "logic".

Stick around and you will see many other flaws as Ray and others have pointed out.

The VDOT tables are just a convenient way of presenting the training paces you will need to target to achieve the race times that are in the chart. Why this is so difficult for Jon Orange to understand is a mystery. I always ask myself when I read his stupid questions, "Is he REALLY this stupid or does he just enjoy rubbing everybody the wrong way every day?"

I am starting to think that he IS that stupid.

I'm glad you referred to Oxygen Power, as that is where the whole thing is pretty well described, as written by Jimmy, who was for many years an elite scientist/computer programmer for NASA (during the time we managed to take some guys to the moon). Some mention has also been made of the term vVO2max, which is a term I originally came up with and some others around the world have assigned their own defintition to, but I guess that's life. I really feel it is a waste of time to try discussing this matter by email; hopefully those who have trouble understanding or buying any of this will find their way to visiting in person sometime so there can be reasonable discussions and explanations. I guess if it works for you, then use it and if not, feel free to not use it. As has been pointed out, it doesn't matter what your economy or VO2max values are; if a measured VO2max is higher than I give you for a VDOT, this just means you are not as economical as I give you credit for being.

Actaully, I ran 2.29.50 for a Marathon after the age of 40.

[quote]Voice of Ray-san wrote:

.

VDOT tables are "economy-neutral". This is because economy is factored out by design, willfully, on-purpose, in order to simplify its use and aid understanding. They neither support nor contradict running-economy research. This is true even if they both come from the same man.

The number in the first column of the VDOT tables is the least important one in the table. How the VDOT index rises, with respect to training and performance is not important, and certainly not a basis to claim it is fundamentally flawed.

[quote]

Ray, all of these statements are false. The VDOT tables are NOT economy neutral.

The VDOT figure IS important, because it implies a status quo, a hierarchy of 'talent' above which, the reader is given very little chance of rising more than a few points.

A VDOT number of 85 is completely unrealistic, and is disempowering to sub elite runners, who want to raise their status, because it implies that VO2 max is much more important than it really is.

If you disagree with these last two paragraphs, then you are underestimating how psychologically numbers are and how important psychology is in empowering or disempowering the athlete.

But regardless of your understanding of psychology, the VDOT tables do contradict the running economy research.

Wrong. They say nothing about economy. VDOT is not a measure of economy anymore than it is a measure of VO2 max. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

No more so than a 12:37 5000 meter time. It is what it is

Wrong again. VDOT is not VO2 Max. It is not economy either. It is a simple measure of running ability. Whether that is due to having a super high actual V02 Max and relatively lower economy or having a relatively lower V02Max and higher running economy is IRRELEVANT.

Have you even read the man's book? He directly states this himself? Yet you incorrectly assert otherwise and then criticize him for not living up to your faulty understanding

Numbers like 12:37? Should we hide the clock when Bekele finishes so as not to "disempower" the other runners?

You are the only person who thinks so. The rest of the world simply uses Daniels VDOT system and improves.

You're missing the point. The psychology of coaching is hugely important.

Why do so few coaches have the ability to mentally empower the athlete?

I have read the book, and the VDOT table is to me the part which lets the book down.

Also, Jack is not a math whizz, even I can see that, he shouldn't be pretending that he is. There is a cetain conceit going on here, and it's not mine.

I will continue to give him credit for his best research, but definitely NOT the VDOT concept.

You seriously are in need of reading comprehension skills. Jack is NOT claiming to be a math whizz. Scroll up your internet explorer window (I assume you are using this because no way you actually know how to install firefox) and see that Jack said that Jimmy Gilbert the Scientist from NASA helped create the tables and is the math whizz behind them.You claim to have read his work yet inaccurately portrayed his VDOT has a simple mean, when it really based on a predicted value from a regression and a non-linear Newton-Raphson method. This is way over your head, not because it takes a NASA scientist to understand these things but because you are dumb.

wellnow wrote:

You're missing the point. The psychology of coaching is hugely important.

Why do so few coaches have the ability to mentally empower the athlete?

I have read the book, and the VDOT table is to me the part which lets the book down.

Also, Jack is not a math whizz, even I can see that, he shouldn't be pretending that he is. There is a cetain conceit going on here, and it's not mine.

I will continue to give him credit for his best research, but definitely NOT the VDOT concept.

The numbers are arbitrary. A mean value SHOULD be represented, otherwise, where is the scope for showing that runners can have a high or low VO2max and still be equally competitive?

A figure of 85 is unfeasible. Regardless of how complicated the equation, to extend the table with new World Records, simply puts the highest VDOT higher and higher, beyond any humanly possible mean value. That is simply ridiculous.

No they are based on a regression and a non-linear search method.

A predicted value is an expected value with variation around it. Therefore by definition the VDOT numbers do imply that there can be runners with higher or lower V02max numbers who run the same times. The coefficients of the equation that estimate the VDOT also have associated standard deviations which could be used to create a confidence interval of VDOT's for a particular time. However the application of this to training is useless sort of like all the advice you give.

It's very likey that 85 is unfeasible, however, the farther away the number predicted is from the actual observed data used, the less accurate it will be. If you took the time to understand the methodology before critiquing JD you would know this.

It's not that complicated just for you as I previously stated.

Because the VDOT tables were created before the new world record, they did not include this when estimating the equation. Extending the equations to data outside of that which they were based is misleading and in no way unvalidates the methodology however it might be useful for JD to update them.

You're ridiculous.

wellnow wrote:

There is a cetain conceit going on here, and it's not mine.

WOW. Did your fingers try to detach themselves and run away when you typed THAT?

Your body does nothing without the muscles actually contracting and producing force. Contractility, effeciency of movement, the ability to generate power per stride, is not universal.

This is an unwinnable argument...which came first the chicken or the egg?

Alan

wellnow wrote:

You're missing the point. The psychology of coaching is hugely important.

And has nothing whatsoever to do with the utility (or lack thereof) of VDOT as a training tool. It works just fine.

Why do so few coaches have the ability to mentally empower the athlete?

Actually the majority of coaches I've met over the years DO have just that ability. It doesn't come from VDOT tables anymore than it comes from a stopwatch. Why you insist on trying to tie the two together remains a mystery. Who looks at Daniels VDOT tables and suddenly "gives up"?

More important, who exactly have you "empowered"? Certainly no on on this forum

I have read the book, and the VDOT table is to me the part which lets the book down.

Only because you persist in willfully misinderstanding it, even after it is explained to you again and again.

espinosa, The problem with the VDOT table is that the higher the VDOT, the lower the economy. So the faster you run, the more unfeasible the number.

espinosa wrote:

It's very likey that 85 is unfeasible, however, the farther away the number predicted is from the actual observed data used, the less accurate it will be. If you took the time to understand the methodology before critiquing JD you would know this.

So how does the VDOT table tally with the methodology? It doesn't it contradicts the methodology, because of the common economy curve, it doesn't address the issue of why we usually don't improve our stride length to match the the more economical runners.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Your body does nothing without the muscles actually contracting and producing force. Contractility, effeciency of movement, the ability to generate power per stride, is not universal.

This is an unwinnable argument...which came first the chicken or the egg?

Alan

Alan, whether any argument/debate is win-able or not, I think you or anyone else should still put your point across, so more power to you sir, and power to the people, right on etc.

Jon

wellnow wrote:

espinosa, The problem with the VDOT table is that the higher the VDOT, the lower the economy. So the faster you run, the more unfeasible the number.

I don't recall Daniels ever saying this.