Question for jtupper or other training pace gurus about determining VDOT

wellnow wrote:

Clayton had a low VO2max and he was a World Record Holder...

If my memory serves me well ... there were serious doubts over that 2:08 Clayton performance. Doubts about route measurement. It was not possible to re-measure the route because it was dug up post race, or some other amendments made to the road that precluded remeasurement. Note also that Clayton never ran anything like that pace again. Ron Hill would know more, because only Clayton's 2:08 time stopped Hill's own 2:09 time from being acknowledged the then World Best (and not the World Record, as you state).

So all you really have is a Kipketer VO2max value that you got off these boards. LR is hardly the last word in credibility. Besides, why shouldn't he have a max uptake of 70 ml/kg/min, VO2max becomes less important the lower the race distance (eg: 800). Note that Kipketer refused for the whole of his career to make the jump to 1500m (at which distance VO2max would become more important). Seems he knew he would fare far worse and wisely stayed away. So, 70 seems possible ... so long as you stick to nothing longer than 800m.

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

Yes, that's true. However most runners just don't see it that way, they imagine that the 84-85 figures are feasible as a mean value of the top runners' VO2max. It makes them look like physical freaks, and that is what people believe. The VDOT tables do nothing to dispove this belief, so in effect, the VDOT tables fail in their intended purpose.

Derek Clayton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Derek Clayton (born 17 November 1942) is a former Australian long-distance runner, born in Cumbria, England and raised in Northern Ireland. He set the world best for the marathon in the Fukuoka Marathon, Japan on 3 December 1967 in 2:09:36.4, in what is considered a classic race, the first marathon race ever run in less than two hours and ten minutes.

He went on to break this time in Antwerp on 30 May 1969 by more than a minute, this time stood as the world best for nearly another 12 years. His personal best time of 2:08:33.6 is still a world class marathon time. Clayton represented Australia at the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City, finishing in 7th place (2:27:23). Four years later he ended up in 13th position (2:19:49) in the same event.

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

Yes the Antwerp time is disputed. What was not disputed was his 2.09

wellnow wrote:

Yes, that's true. However most runners just don't see it that way, they imagine that the 84-85 figures are feasible as a mean value of the top runners' VO2max.

Wrong. Fail.

Only a tiny fraction of runners in the world even know what their VO2 Max is. Only a tiny fraction of runners in the world even know what VO2 Max means. Fewer of those use or even know of Daniels.

NONE of these make this completely asinine assumption that it is a mean value of VO2 Max. That one is all you.

Glad at least to see that you have admitted you got the definition wrong. I guess that's progress.

wellnow wrote:

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

Yes, that's true. However most runners just don't see it that way, they imagine that the 84-85 figures are feasible as a mean value of the top runners' VO2max. It makes them look like physical freaks, and that is what people believe. The VDOT tables do nothing to dispove this belief, so in effect, the VDOT tables fail in their intended purpose.

Now you are just making stuff up.

And you think the best runners in the world are just ordinary people - not physical freaks?

VDOT-er wrote:

It has now been clearly shown - even by your own email from him - that VDOT is NOT supposed to be a "mean value". It is NOT halfway between VO2 max and economy. That this assertion was purely your invention. Therefore your entire criticism of Daniels was fallacious. It was based upon an error by you.

He didn't "get the numbers wrong". You got the definitions wrong.

Let me explain this to you, because you obviously don't get it:

VDOT is a representation of the average economy of all the runners who were tested. As such, it plots a line between those runners who had relatively HIGH VO2max and LOW economy, and those runners who had relatively LOW VO2max and HIGH economy.

However, since the VDOT values represent an average of everyone tested, the line cannot be extrapolated for the runners with the highest levels of fitness.

Statistically as you get further away from the center of your data then the curve is going to have a higher margin of error. I don't think anybody would dispute taht.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

wellnow wrote:

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

Yes, that's true. However most runners just don't see it that way, they imagine that the 84-85 figures are feasible as a mean value of the top runners' VO2max. It makes them look like physical freaks, and that is what people believe. The VDOT tables do nothing to dispove this belief, so in effect, the VDOT tables fail in their intended purpose.

Now you are just making stuff up.

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

Just read what people think on this thread. Most of them believe that the 85 figure IS feasible. I'm not making it up, just read for yourself.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Statistically as you get further away from the center of your data then the curve is going to have a higher margin of error. I don't think anybody would dispute taht.

True, but, how do you convince people that an American runner with a VO2max below 70 can beat the Africans?

A lot of people reading that last sentence will say it's ridiculous, thus proving my point.

wellnow wrote:

Let me explain this to you, because you obviously don't get it:

VDOT is a representation of the average economy of all the runners who were tested.

Let me correct your explanation: Wrong.

VDOT is NOT a representation of the average economy. You made that up.

It is not a representation of their average VO2 max either. You made that up as well.

It says nothing about their economy or VO2 max, only about their performances.

Not five posts ago you you JUST got through admitting your definition was wrong...

heyyo wrote:

VDOT is a manufactured number meant to help people with pacing not define the limits of human potential. It is an index like CPI, it only has meaning in relation to other VDOT values. It can't be used to make conclusions about V02max. (emphasis added)

wellnow wrote:

yes that's true

...and now here you go repeating the made-up definition again.

You cannot possibly be this obtuse. No one can.

VDOT-er wrote:

Let me correct your explanation: Wrong.

VDOT is NOT a representation of the average economy. You made that up.

It is not a representation of their average VO2 max either. You made that up as well.

It says nothing about their economy or VO2 max, only about their performances.

I didn't make anything up, why don't you re-read Jack's email? He explained it perfectly well. The date of all the runners was plotted to represent average figures. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

wellnow wrote:

I didn't make anything up, why don't you re-read Jack's email? He explained it perfectly well. The date of all the runners was plotted to represent average figures. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Because that is not what he says. In fact, nowhere in that entire message does he even use the word "average". Or "mean". Why is that so hard for you to admit?

It's a common economy curve, an average of all the runners tested. Why do you have such a problem with the word average? I didn't make anything up. That was simply not true, an accusation by two of you who don't understand what is being discussed.

Checkmate.

wellnow wrote:

Yes, that's true. However most runners just don't see it that way, they imagine that the 84-85 figures are feasible as a mean value of the top runners' VO2max. It makes them look like physical freaks, and that is what people believe. The VDOT tables do nothing to dispove this belief, so in effect, the VDOT tables fail in their intended purpose.

I think this thread just proves my point that people just don't understand the VDOT concept or the VDOT tables. They just reinforce the mythology that aerobic capacity is more important than neuromucular coordination, which is absurd, but without proper education on the subject, people just repeat the same old myths over and over and over.

The VDOT economy curves fail to show the real issues of economy, and show complety to opposite of what was intended, with the stupid extrapolation to 85 VDOT.

wellnow wrote:

I think this thread just proves my point that people just don't understand the VDOT concept or the VDOT tables.

Better include yourself in that group there, Jon. For those just joining in: In direct response to wellnows ramblings on the point, the man who invented VDOT said this on page one of this very thread

jtupper wrote:

Drop by sometime and I will explain the whole thing to you because it sounds like something went over your head. Sorry if it isn't clear.

They just reinforce the mythology that aerobic capacity is more important than neuromucular coordination, which is absurd, but without proper education on the subject, people just repeat the same old myths over and over and over

The VDOT economy curves fail to show the real issues of economy, and show complety to opposite of what was intended, with the stupid extrapolation to 85 VDOT.

You have set up a straw man and knocked it down. Congratulations.

That was typical Jack Daniels response when anyone dares to disagree with him. His sarcasm was unwarranted, my criticism is valid.

wellnow wrote:

That was typical Jack Daniels response when anyone dares to disagree with him. His sarcasm was unwarranted, my criticism is valid.

I have watched Daniels post here for a number of years. I have yet to see any sarcasm from the man. He has been nothing but kind and helpful to all. Where else can I find this "typical" sarcasm of his?