Question for jtupper or other training pace gurus about determining VDOT

No it does not. Merely having a higher VDOT value does not necessarily mean one's economy is lower. In fact, the higher VDOT might be because one's economy is higher.

You need to go back and re-read the definition of VDOT

You're missing the point. The higher values are less economical than the lower values, look at the numbers, look at the graph.

wellnow wrote:

You're missing the point. The higher values are less economical than the lower values, look at the numbers, look at the graph.

The higher numbers mean they run faster than the lower numbers.

Then the next time you should say what you mean the first time because higher VDOT by itself does not mean lower economy.

In order to avoid further confusion, to which graph exactly, are you referring? Page number or a link, please

The graph of the three women runners. And all of the VDOT numbers. The economy declines as the VDOT figures rise. It's pretty straightforward, there is nothing complicated about what I am saying, just look at the numbers.

I want to be clear now. WHICH graph of 3 women runners. Do you mean one on page 29 of Daniels Running Formula?

I haven't got the book in front of me, but I do have the e-mail attachment in front of me, it is the same graph as in the book, the one with the three women who ran 3000m in just over 9 minutes and the 65.4 VDOT for the common economy curve at around 330 m/min.

wellnow wrote:

You're missing the point. The higher values are less economical than the lower values, look at the numbers, look at the graph.

You've missed the entire point of this thread, which you hijacked in a pathetic attempt to feed your ego.

wellnow wrote:

I haven't got the book in front of me, but I do have the e-mail attachment in front of me, it is the same graph as in the book, the one with the three women who ran 3000m in just over 9 minutes and the 65.4 VDOT for the common economy curve at around 330 m/min.

That graph shows VO2 Max as a function of running speed. VO2 Max, not VDOT.

How many times do you need to be told "VDOT is not VO2 Max" before it actually sinks in?

typo: VO2, not VO2 Max

The graph in front of me is the same one as in the book, it shows the individual economy curves INCLUDING their VO2max results, AND the common economy curve with the number 65.4 VDOT, the representative figure for the speed 330m/min.

Stop your crazy ranting and pay attention!!!!

Kevin52 wrote:

wellnow wrote:

You're missing the point. The higher values are less economical than the lower values, look at the numbers, look at the graph.

You've missed the entire point of this thread, which you hijacked in a pathetic attempt to feed your ego.

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

No, all of you arguing with me are missing the point, the VDOT figures calculated cannot be extrapolated to the best runners, who have better economy.

This just shows how none of you understand VDOT, how it was calculated, and how the simple extrapolation to 85 is unfeasible.

Unlike you I actually DO have the book in front of me.

Y-axis label: V02(ml*kg*min)

X-axis label: Running Velocity (m*min)

It is the only such graph of the 3 women runners in the whole book.

It does not deal with VDOT. The very conceptof VDOT is not even introduced until the next chapter.

What exactly do you have in front of you?

An email attachment from the man himself

It would make things simpler if you could at least give me an X-axis label and a Y-axis label

Gone for the day?

Is it the graph in Figure 2 shown in this pdf?

http://www.canibaisereis.com/download/power-of-vdot-daniels.pdf

That's pretty much the graph that's in Daniels page 29, although the one in the book does not mention the 65.4 VDOT or show the line for it.

However it can't be that graph. If it were that graph, it would mean that wellnow doesn't understand what he is talking about and we all know that's impossible

Then wellnow is probably referring to the one in the pdf and the book version just omits the 65.4 vdot curve.

So if I'm reading this correctly, the three sample women here have similar performance numbers and similar vdot values (it says they each have their own vdot values, and you can see this as they have slightly different vV02max values). The representive 65.4 vdot curve is closest to these three.

A has the highest vdot value (slightly higher than 65.4), B has the lowest and C is in the middle. A has the higest v02 and the worst economy, C has lowest v02 and the best economy, B somewhere in between.

So where is wellnow coming up with this higher vdot=lower economy? This graph doesn't show this at all.