Exactly. It doesn't show it at all.
That's why I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesn't mean that graph. Because if he meant that graph, it would mean he does not understand what he is talking about.
Exactly. It doesn't show it at all.
That's why I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesn't mean that graph. Because if he meant that graph, it would mean he does not understand what he is talking about.
Incidentally, although the article does say they have their own VDOT values, because the times they ran in the time trial were so close, practially speaking(at least from this one simple test) they really have the same VDOT value of 65.4
Yeah. from vaues on the x axis, I calculated their vdots as:
A 65.7
B 65.1
C 65.3
anyway, well now can confirm if it's the same graph.
It has to be the same graph, based on his previous posts.
He must be referring to the labels on the right side near the lines, marked as 73, 69 and 60. He's interpreting those as vdot values, but they're actually V02max values. The pdf has them labelled V02max. Maybe the version he has is missing those labels. That's all I can think of.
Exactly again.
Except he couldn't be interpreting them that way since the Y axis clearly says VO2, not VDOT. And he understands this topic and we do not, remember?
And too bad his version of the graph didn't come with text because if he chose to read the text written by The Man, himself, he would have seen the following:
It is not unusual for a runner to find a VDOT value that does not match VO2max. If you measure a higher VO2max than your VDOT, then you don’t have a running economy that is as good as our generic economy curve. On the other hand, a lab VO2max value that is lower than your prescribed VDOT indicates you have a better economy than what is used in our calculations.
THEREFORE: An VDOT of 85 is not impossible because it doesn't mean that the WR holder has a V02max of 85. As stated above, they could have a value that is lower than the prescribed VDOT indicated that you have a better economy than what is used in the calculations.
Additionally, if a V02max of 85 is unattainable and the WR holders don't/didn't have that high of V02max then this only supports Dr. Daniel's work on running economy not contradict it as wellnow would like to suggest.
Oh trust me, that salient fact has been explained to him over and over again, ad nauseum.
I'll repost the link here:
http://www.canibaisereis.com/download/power-of-vdot-daniels.pdf
wellnow, is the graph in question the same as the one presented as 'Figure 2' in this pdf?
No, it's not the same. Maybe the print was different for the British market? I can forward the email and attachment, or you can ask JD to send it to you.
Sorry, wrong graph.
YES, it is the same as graph 2.
heyyo wrote:
And too bad his version of the graph didn't come with text because if he chose to read the text written by The Man, himself, he would have seen the following:
It is not unusual for a runner to find a VDOT value that does not match VO2max. If you measure a higher VO2max than your VDOT, then you don’t have a running economy that is as good as our generic economy curve. On the other hand, a lab VO2max value that is lower than your prescribed VDOT indicates you have a better economy than what is used in our calculations.
THEREFORE: An VDOT of 85 is not impossible because it doesn't mean that the WR holder has a V02max of 85. As stated above, they could have a value that is lower than the prescribed VDOT indicated that you have a better economy than what is used in the calculations.
Additionally, if a V02max of 85 is unattainable and the WR holders don't/didn't have that high of V02max then this only supports Dr. Daniel's work on running economy not contradict it as wellnow would like to suggest.
Yes, of course a VO2max of 85 and higher will be seen in the top runners. But the VDOT is supposed to be a common economy curve extrapolated the higher fitness levels.
However, that is unfeasible, because the variations would be 70 or lower to 90 or so.
Economy has two main components, genetics and training. The top runners have far superior economy than the average runner, which cannot be exraploted from the common economy curve.
wellnow wrote:
Sorry, wrong graph.
YES, it is the same as graph 2.
Then you have some explaining to do.
You presented this graph as proof that a higher VDOT means a lower economy. But VDOT does not increase in that graph. It remains constant. The entire point of the graph is to show that runners with different economies and different VO2 Max values have the same VDOT.
You're not very good at this are you?
Study the graph for a few days and try to work out what the dashed line (the common economy curve)represents.
The lower the VDOT, the more economical the runner in terms of distance run per unit of time. The higher figures show less economy per unit of time. Don't compare different distances, compare the distance run in a given length of time.
The figures in the VDOT table are not compatible with what the top runners in each event are doing.
There are so many variables involved that trying to discern accurate assesment of fitness from the VDOT table is pointless. The VDOT table is an exercise in statistics; and projected statistics based on the many runners tested render such projections susceptible to innacuracy by significant margins.
wellnow wrote:
You're not very good at this are you?
Apparently I am better at it than you.
Study the graph for a few days and try to work out what the dashed line (the common economy curve)represents.
I do know what it represents, because I can read the legend (can you?) The rate of oxygen consumption per unit body mass as a function of speed.
The problem is, that's oxygen consumption, not VDOT
The lower the VDOT, the more economical the runner in terms of distance run per unit of time.
Wrong. Graphing oxygen consumption is NOT graphing VDOT. That's where you keep going wrong. If you are jogging along at an easy pace, you are consuming quite a bit less oxygen but your VDOT is exactly the same. You know why? Because VDOT is a simple ability score. An index. It is not a measure of the oxygen you consume.
Please, please for the love of God try to get this through your thick head.
The higher figures show less economy per unit of time. Don't compare different distances, compare the distance run in a given length of time.
But they do not show "less" VDOT. VDOT remains constant.
This thread has great comedy value. It is approaching legendary status in my mind.
wellnow wrote:
Study the graph for a few days and try to work out what the dashed line (the common economy curve)represents.
The lower the VDOT, the more economical the runner in terms of distance run per unit of time. The higher figures show less economy per unit of time.
No no no, that's not what the representative vdot curve does at all.
I'm sure Dr. Daniels can explain it btter and confirm what I'm saying, but I'll try my best to explain it. That particular entry doesn't have 'lower vdot' in it...that line is for that 65.4 vdot value only. It's a predictive line of how fast you would run at a given V02 value. The top (rightmost) point is pace at v02max (roughly 331m/min) and all points on the curve to the left of it are predictive paces at values below V02max. Its all the same vdot entry.
The other lines on the chart shows actual measured values of V02 and 3k paces for 3 subjects with nearly the same vdot value and how their personal relationships of v02max and economy come into play and how they relate to that vdot value.
But when you (heyyo) say that a VDOT of 85 is not impossible because it doesn't mean that the WR holder has a VO2max of 85 due to differences in economy THEN you must ALSO agree about this:
Let's assume that three very different runners are able to run 12.37,4 min for the 5000m (and then have a VDOT of 85). One of these runners is super economical and does it with a VO2max of only 70. The second runner has a VO2max value of 85. The third runner then MUST have a VO2max of 100 because he is not very economical (the VDOT of 85 means an average VO2max of 85 for runners able to reach 85 as their VDOT).
That's why wellnow of course originally started asking why Dr. Daniels' highest VDOT was 85! It simply means that if someone is able to run 5000m giving a VDOT of 85 with a low maximum oxygen uptake of 70 or 75 then other not very economical runners should be able to get a VO2max result of 95 or 100 in the lab! AND THAT'S OF COURSE NOT POSSIBLE!!!
That fact also explains why SOME of the very best runners must be less economical than the not so good runners which in the end actually makes fast runners less economical because it's an average!
Reaching a VDOT of 65 by running 5000m in 15.54 minutes means that someone does it by having a VO2max of 55, someone by 65 and someone by 75! That makes more sense because it's of course possible that someone can't run 5 damn kilometers much faster than 16 minutes even though they are running around with a VO2max of 75! But it's not possible ro run around with a VO2max of 100!
And it all actually makes even less sense when looking at the buttom of the scale. A runner only able to run 5 km in 30.40 minutes would have a VDOT of 30. That means of course that not every runner has a VO2max of 30. It means that some have a VO2max of 45 and some a VO2max of 15. Or wait - is it possible to have a VO2max of only 15 when you are perhaps a young, uneconomical runner able ro run 5 k in about a half an hour? Damn I wouldn't like to see this runners VO2max when he / she grew older - the person would die just because of bad oxygen comsumption before he / she got 40 years old!
In my opinion the VDOT scale should have limits from about 45 to 78 / 79 given the times in the different events
And the young runner was of course economical!
Morten DK wrote:
Let's assume that three very different runners are able to run 12.37,4 min for the 5000m (and then have a VDOT of 85). One of these runners is super economical and does it with a VO2max of only 70. The second runner has a VO2max value of 85. The third runner then MUST have a VO2max of 100 because he is not very economical
why must runner #3 not be very economical?