Bump the Jtupper new Book question
Bump the Jtupper new Book question
VDOT-er wrote:
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?
*************************************************
He explained this to me in writing a few years ago.
Was it an email? A postal letter? A message board post? I would like to read that, please. Because on this very thread he specifically said it appears you don't understand the concept.
email. Probably the same words that are in the book. Have you read the book?
As for Jack saying I didn't understand, he knows exactly what I am refering to when I say that 85 is unfeasible. He just doesn't want to discuss it.
email. Probably the same words that are in the book. Have you read the book?
As for Jack saying I didn't understand, he knows exactly what I am refering to when I say that 85 is unfeasible. He just doesn't want to discuss it.
Yes I have read the book. It says nothing of the sort. Neither does anything else we've ever written.
So let's see. We have you here telling us about an email you say you got once from Jack Daniels. We have Jack Daniels himself telling us you don't know what you're talking about.
Hmmmmm. Who to believe?
So are you calling me a liar?
Post the e-mail.
Economy curve & vdot.ppt (63KB)
See if the stuff written below and the attached power point figure clears
things up any. Jack Daniels
During the 1960s I was testing a lot of well-trained runners, some elite,
others of more moderate performance, but still serious in their pursuit of
achieving their best. I discovered that there is a good deal of variability
in running economy and in VO2max. Some not-so-elite runners had better
economy than others who out-performed them, and the determining factor in
favor of the better runner was a superior VO2max. Then there were those
better runners who did not have a VO2max advantage, and they were found to
have a running-economy advantage. I figured there had to be a way to combine
VO2max and running economy into a single, more accurate value that represented
a runner’s current state of fitness or race potential.
I placed each runner’s VO2max value on an extrapolation of that runner’s
economy curve, and then, using the associated regression equation for that
runner’s economy curve, calculated the speed of running that was
mathematically associated with that runner’s max. For the resulting speed of
running I coined the term “velocity at VO2max” (vVO2max), and vVO2max is a far
better value to use to compare the aerobic profiles of different runners, or
of the same runner during different phases of training or states of fitness.
The accompanying figure shows the economy curves and VO2max data for three
very good female runners I tested some years ago. VO2max values varied from 60
to 73 ml.min-1.kg-1, and it clear that the runner with the highest Max also
had the poorest economy, while the one with the low, 60 max had very good
economy. The result of these different combinations of economy and VO2max was
that their vVO2max values were very similar for the three runners, as were
their best times for 3000 meters on the track (from 9:06 to 9:09).
It is interesting to note how close to parallel the economy curves for these
three runners are. In fact, a single economy curve that would represent all
three of these runners can be arrived at, which, along with a single vVO2max
value that also represents the three, can be used to calculate a common VO2max
that represents all three. This representative, pseudo VO2max value, we
called “VDOT.” So, VDOT describes a value that represents a VO2max, that,
when associated with a generic economy curve can be used to say how fast you
can run a particular race. In the example shown in the figure, our generic
economy curve (based on many runners tested over a number of years) is shown
as a bold dashed line, and to coincide with the times run by these runners you
can see that our calculated VDOT value is 65.3, which does not match any of
the three runners’ VO2max.
Jack Daniels
Center for High Altitude Training
Northern Arizona University
+1 928 523 4444
+1 928 523 9401 (fax)
So where in there does it say that VDOT is supposed to be halfway between the two values? Or even an average of the two values?
bump
Do you not have good reading comprehension skills?
man you guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. talk about over analysis!
Distance running is a simple sport and you guys are over thinking it a hundred times over.
"OMG I ran an interval workout 2 sec per 400 faster than my VDOT!!! panic panic panic!!!"
jackofalltrades wrote:
man you guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. talk about over analysis!
Distance running is a simple sport and you guys are over thinking it a hundred times over.
"OMG I ran an interval workout 2 sec per 400 faster than my VDOT!!! panic panic panic!!!"
I'm finding this interesting, actually.
What is meant by "shorter heels" in this article?
I'm finding this interesting, actually.
yeah while we sit around trying to turn distance running into a mathematical formula, the east africans are freaking killing us on the track and xc course.
stop doing math and just run
wellnow wrote:
Do you not have good reading comprehension skills?
Well, clearly you don't. Even in the email you sent, Daniels makes it very clear that VDOT is a value used as a predictor of pace given that there is a direct relationship between V02max and economy when comparing two runners of the same ability. In runners of the same speed, if one's V02max is higher than the other's, their economy is lower.
So, VDOT describes a value that represents a VO2max, that, when associated with a generic economy curve can be used to say how fast you can run a particular race.
It's not an average - it's a useful, derived value in predicting performance which accounts for this direct relationship between economy and V02max. In effect, it removes these two variables as they effectively and practically cancel each other out. What is really important, after all, is your ultimate velocity.
As an aside, values such as this are practically and typically used for the masses, and to predict to a given number of standard deviations. If you take them to the extremes or try to use them to predict times faster than world records, obviously there may be problems associated with the extreme abilities of world-record holders. It's entirely possible that someone like Bekele has a max V02 of 85 and runs at 98% of his V02max - these tables are not for him and often don't predict for the extremes. You think he's sitting down at lunch at work and using the Daniels tables to figure out if he can run 12:32 this year?
wellnow,
Maybe you should follow Jack Daniels' Formula if you only managed 2:29:50 for a Marathon at 40, buddy.
Well "plastic rubber" said it rather clearly. To this I would add, redundantly, that there is nothing in that entire missive that says or implies that VDOT must be halfway between VO2 Max and economy. That is purely your invention.
This makes your entire criticism of Daniels (the man who invented VDOT) completely absurd, based off of a definition you made up in your head.
I would add to this that the 'generic efficiency curve' does and would not apply to runners who are under 13 minutes for 5K - wellnow is making the erroneous assumption that this balance is a given. It's not - it's an estimate. I'm sure Jack could draw an elite efficiency curve for world-class runners, but what's the point? Someone running under 13 minutes isn't looking at tables. They're not looking at benchmarks - they ARE the benchmark.