Question for jtupper or other training pace gurus about determining VDOT

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.

VDOT already has the economy figured into it.

Wellnow is LetsRun´s most sophisticated troll. He doesn´t write obvious rubbish like 430miler, but whenever certain topics pop up you know he will be there to make people pissed off.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

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.

VDOT already has the economy figured into it.

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

It's an average economy, and that's why the VDOT number becomes unfeasible the higher up the table you go. Because the runners with the best fitness don't get a realistic average figure in relation their true VO2max. So the highers number on the chart 85 is very much higher than the actual mean value the fastest runners. This makes them look like the mythological "aerobic monster" when in fact, there is no such human exists.

wellnow wrote:

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

It's an average economy, and that's why the VDOT number becomes unfeasible the higher up the table you go. Because the runners with the best fitness don't get a realistic average figure in relation their true VO2max. So the highers number on the chart 85 is very much higher than the actual mean value the fastest runners. This makes them look like the mythological "aerobic monster" when in fact, there is no such human exists.

I think you know you are being disingenuous. Daniel's Running Formula, while based on physiological research, is not a physiology textbook. It is a practical trainging manual. Nothing more nothing less. The VDOT numbers are not meant to be graphed to the VO2Max values for individual runners.

I suggest you do this Jon: take a black sharpie to your copy of DRF. Black out the VDOT numbers. Then just use the pace charts as useful approximations of good training paces. That's all they are-pace charts.

I got borrowed the book from a library. If the numbers had been something I could have really admired, I would have bought the book.

There is some good advice in the book, and some very interesting info. The most interesting for me is about altitude and economy. I can't remember the figures but doesn't Jakc say something like: at 6000ft an acclimatized runner's VO2max is 12% lower, but he is more economical due to less wind resistance. Well my instincts tell me that wind resistance would only make a small difference at

5k pace or slower, so there must also be an improvement in running economy happening inside the muscles.

If you know that most of our fast twitch fibers have a high oxidative capacity, then it's obvious that how we use them has great influence on how fast we race. Could it be true that altitude training influences muscle fiber recruitment in such a way that a distance runner is able to use more fast oxidative fibers at a given pace, and that this becomes an advantage which can be used at sea level?

wellnow wrote:

It's an average economy, and that's why the VDOT number becomes unfeasible the higher up the table you go. Because the runners with the best fitness don't get a realistic average figure in relation their true VO2max.

I can't believe this. You did it AGAIN. How many times now have you been told tht VDOT is not VO2 max? Ten? Twenty? When are you going to get this through your head?

You're missing the point. How many times do YOU have to be told? 50? 100? 1000?

The VDOT of 85 is an unfeasible number. The VDOT is supposed to be an average number, halfway between the most economical runners and those with the highest oxygen uptake. When are YOU going to get this through YOUR head????

wellnow wrote:

The VDOT is supposed to be an average number, halfway between the most economical runners and those with the highest oxygen uptake. When are YOU going to get this through YOUR head????

I don't need to "get it through my head". It's wrong. Flat out wrong. That statement is completely your invention.

I'm pretty confident on this one. Would you care to bet a three figure sum against me?

Good for you. If it is what you say it is, he sure doesn't say that in Daniels Running Formula. Are you gonna quote Oxygen Power for us? Quote away then

Put up or shut up.

Read this:

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

The term "VDOT" does not even appear in that article.

How exactly does that prove that VDOT is what you say it is?

Well?

jtupper / Jack Daniels,

There is no doubt you have been researching and coaching since the release of your book. Do you have any new information posted anywhere or plans for a next book? I really admire your research and your book has inspired me and allowed me to become a better runner. If you have additional research I would definitely take the time to read it.

wellnow wrote:

Read this:

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

Still waiting for your reply, wellnow. How exactly does this citation show that VDOT is what you say it is?

The study shows huge variations in oxygen uptake for a given pace. These variations suggested to correlate with ankle length show that VO2max is not reliable as a predictor of pace. The lower figures and the corresponding short ankle suggest that elite runners with short ankles would be running super fast times with very low a VO2max.

The research of Dr. Daniels and others shows the same huge variations, and these variations show the unfeasibility of a VDOT of 85.

Whether this matters or not depends on how you perceive the importance of these figures. But your own intransigence on this matter suggests that you are one of those people who believes in the idea that the top distance runners have superior 'aerobic development'.

We already knew that VO2max was not a reliable predictor of pace. We've known about that for decades. However since VDOT is not VO2max.

(I can understand why you missed that. I've only said it 4 or 5 times now)

So you have again ignored the question. One more time, how exactly does your study show that

"The VDOT is supposed to be an average number, halfway between the most economical runners and those with the highest oxygen uptake. "

The study doesn't mention VDOT does it? It was Jack Daniels' intention to show that the VDOT is supposed to be an average number, halfway between the most economical runners and those with the highest oxygen uptake.

However, the VDOT table extrapolated data from all runners up to a value of 85, which doesn't reflect the superior fitness of the fastest runners.

wellnow wrote:

The study doesn't mention VDOT does it?

No it doesn't. That's my point. How does it support your contention that VDOT is supposed to be an average, halfway between economy and VO2 max? It doesn't. So why bring it up?

It was Jack Daniels' intention to show that the VDOT is supposed to be an average number, halfway between the most economical runners and those with the highest oxygen uptake.

Says you. One more time, back this up. Where does Daniels say that that was his intention?