Question for jtupper or other training pace gurus about determining VDOT

If your goals are 5K and 10K, seems like your 5K time is a better reference.

You are pretty normal for some people who tend to race better at shorter distances (maybe because of the amount of training you do or because of your physiological makeup). I would use the 61 VDOT for rep sessions; then try 59 or 60 for the Interval stuff and 57 VDOT for your threshold workouts. It is quite normal for those stronger in the 800 and 1500/mile to have to add 8 seconds per 400 to Rep pace for Intervals and another 8+ seconds per 400 to Interval pace for Threshold runs.

the book says to use the fastest vdot value and train at those paces.

i'm pretty sure my highest vdot value would be for 800m. i'm not sure if you are supposed to use that value instead of the 1500/mile value.

jtupper wrote:

You are pretty normal for some people who tend to race better at shorter distances (maybe because of the amount of training you do or because of your physiological makeup). I would use the 61 VDOT for rep sessions; then try 59 or 60 for the Interval stuff and 57 VDOT for your threshold workouts. It is quite normal for those stronger in the 800 and 1500/mile to have to add 8 seconds per 400 to Rep pace for Intervals and another 8+ seconds per 400 to Interval pace for Threshold runs.

Thanks, Jack. My only concern with running my T workouts that slow is if I am under-training and will have a hard time reaching my goals this season for the longer distances. Ultimately I want to achieve times that are commensurate with my mile time (i.e., sub 17 5K, sub 35 10K). Thanks again for your expert feedback!

jtupper,

if one has a "T" pace of 6:00m/mile but chooses to do their "T" pace workouts slightly slower than the prescribe pace (ie. in this case 6:10-6:15) would they be getting the same effect physiologically?

what about using the same philosophy with reps and intervals, slightly slower than prescribed pace

Nugatory wrote:

Thanks, Jack. My only concern with running my T workouts that slow is if I am under-training and will have a hard time reaching my goals this season for the longer distances. Ultimately I want to achieve times that are commensurate with my mile time (i.e., sub 17 5K, sub 35 10K). Thanks again for your expert feedback!

It is much better to undertrain a little than to overtrain a little. You can still improve when you're a little undertrained. I would know. Overtraining is a bitch.

FYI, my PR's are:

800 - 1:59

1500 - 4:06

3000 - 9:21

5000 - 15:54

8000 - 26:25

10,000 - 35:00

HM - 1:13:13

bump for jtupper

Most distance runners are at threshold pace when at about 88% of VO2max, but that is not 100% the case and some are down around 86% (could be a little lower and for some even above 88%), so it is quite possible to still get the desired benefit when not at exactly 88%. Another approach for lots of runners are accelleration runs,longer "tempo" runs that start out quite comfortably and gradually get faster until you are approaching or reaching the predicted intensity and holding that for a couple miles. If you feel you are working, you are, and that "comfortably hard" feel will eventually become associated with a faster and faster pace, and the race times will reflect the improvement

Jack. Your vdot table goes up to 85. Why? that doesn't make sense if it was meant to be a mean value. Surely the highest vdot should be around 78-79?

Since 85 VDOT is associated with a 5k time of 12:37, I figure that would be a good upper value, but I can go to any value or race time for any distance (7.385 miles in 32:00 would be an 83.58 VDOT, for example)

Nugatory wrote:

FYI, my PR's are:

800 - 1:59

1500 - 4:06

3000 - 9:21

5000 - 15:54

8000 - 26:25

10,000 - 35:00

HM - 1:13:13

So what were you doing during that 10km? YOu have only run 35min for 10km yet you have a 73min Half Marry????? something not right about that. Your 3k is also a touch whack compared to your other times.

Yeah, 33:20 would be a reasonable 10k

Run another 10k wrote:

Nugatory wrote:

FYI, my PR's are:

800 - 1:59

1500 - 4:06

3000 - 9:21

5000 - 15:54

8000 - 26:25

10,000 - 35:00

HM - 1:13:13

So what were you doing during that 10km? YOu have only run 35min for 10km yet you have a 73min Half Marry????? something not right about that. Your 3k is also a touch whack compared to your other times.

Yeah, I know! My 10K PR pace is slightly slower than my HM PR pace. The HM was run near my absolute peak of fitness in Spring 2006. At that point, I'd never run a 10K in my life. Then I got injured, had to sit out basically 10 months, and then came back and ran 36:07 and 35:00 for my first two 10K's ever in Fall 2007. Pretty ridiculous!

As for the 3K, that was run at a preseason indoor meet before I had started doing any track work. Haven't run too many of those. Do other people have whacky discrepancies in their PR's due to such circumstances, or is it just me?

jtupper wrote:

Since 85 VDOT is associated with a 5k time of 12:37, I figure that would be a good upper value, but I can go to any value or race time for any distance (7.385 miles in 32:00 would be an 83.58 VDOT, for example)

But how did you arrive at a figure of 85 for 12.37?

If you have measured Clayton with 69 and your highest value is 85 then as a mean value for the highest VDOT, this must imply that the variation for the fastest runners goes to well over 100? Surely the normal range is 69 or lower up to 87 or 88? and so the mean value should be perhaps 78-79?

Jack, 85 is simply unfeasible and undermines your good work on the subject of running economy. This is also bound to give elite runners a feeling of inferiority when looking at the chart?

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.

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.

Jack, why don't you define "threshhold pace" once and for all?

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.

But I DO understand the VDOT concepts Jack. The problem is you have miscalculated. If the VDOT is supposed to be a mean value, then 85 is an impossible figure.

Look Jack, how can I report your research if your VDOT table contradicts your work on running economy? I can't until you admit you got the numbers wrong.

wellnow,

I suggest not getting caught up in VDOT meaning and thinking of it instead in terms of vVO2 Max (velocity at VO2 max) which takes into account economy as well as VO2 Max. Think of the VDOT numbers as just point levels indicating their reference to one another.

If you use this approach and calculate the vVO2 max as the pace you can run for 11-12 minutes in an all out effort, then your Repetition, VO2 max, Threshold and Marathon workouts just become a percentage of that vVO2 max.

Dr. Jack corect me if you think I'm off base here.