Question for jtupper or other training pace gurus about determining VDOT

MPR wrote:

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.

Yes thanks, I understand that. But the problem with Jack's VDOT table is that he is undermining his own research on running economy. The higher end figures actually show worse economy than the lower end figures. I think Jack is afraid to say whether or not he believes a super economical runner with a VO2 max of 69-70 can run 12.37 or quicker. Of course it IS possible, and so the VDOT of 85 is completely unfeasible. If the normal range of World Class runners that Jack has measured is 69/70 - 88-90,

then the mean value must be around 78-79? and that should be the maximum VDOT. A realistic figure, not something unnatainable by any of his readers.

When I read the Daniel's Running Formula, I was struck by just how indirectly the VDOT table was linked to VO2max. Because your VDOT is determined strictly from your racing, it simply becomes a pace table, designed to help you determine different training paces.

The VDOT in the VDOT tables is in fact a "pseudo" VO2max, which neither requires determining your real VO2max in a lab, nor working out your economy. You simply work your race times backwards, to get a VDOT index, or a pseudo-VO2max.

Whatever VDOT is supposed to mean, the "pseudo-VDOT" in the VDOT tables is not meant to be any kind of average, but meant to provide most of his readers a reliable way of determining other training paces, without the hassle of going to a lab. This is for the benefit of the majority of his readers.

It doesn't so much undermine any great work done on economy as it completely ignores it, by fudging the product of VO2max and economy together, into a pseudo-VDOT linked to a race time. This effectively gives everyone the same "economy", regardless of their "real" VO2max and economy. Maybe this is the "mean value" you refer to.

Of course, this was all well explained in the DRF -- that a low VO2max combined with high economy, can perform as well as a high VO2max with a low economy.

I find it interesting that your concern is that elite athletes will develop inferiority complexes, by reading Daniel's VDOT tables. Clearly DRF is targeted at helping more mundane runners, and elite athletes already have the mentality and belief that they are somehow different from the rest of the world.

If most of his readers are in the 50-60 range, DRF covers them. I'm sure none of them mind if the table is still accurate at 80 and above.

Think of Jack's VDOT concept as the EQUIVALENT energetic cost of running; given a reference time for a given distance. For example, a person who runs a mile in 3:51 or 5,000m in 13:17 will have a VO2 max at or near 80mls/kg/minute; on the average. If Jack tested 100 elite runners, who achieved 80mls/kg/minute in the lab, their times aligned well, statistically or emperically, with a relative Vo2 max/peak of 80.

Caveat:

A very economical runner might achieve those times yet have a relative Vo2 max of 75.2; and yes an uneconomical runner might achieve the same times with a Vo2 max of 82.9 (+2.5%). Does it matter, in terms of training? Not at all! The training paces associated are percentages of the predicted total equivalent energetic cost of running the refrence race-times. The total energetic cost combines acute oxygen demand with efficiency (economy), so the training paces are appropriate, regardless of an individuals lab-tested results. What counts is the strong link/association between the reference times and the predicted Vo2 cost; not how far a runner is above or below the predicted norm.

I understand the rationale. However, Jack shows how three women with widely differing VO2 max, run about the same time. He has recorded the same thing in men.

So the range for elite me is from below 70 to the high 80's

So surely the mean value for elite runners would be in the high seventies?

With the highest VDOT in the book being 85 it will have the inevitable effect of making World Class performance seem out of reach to his American readers.

Numbers have very significant psychological effects on runners. They can present a mental barrier. If this applies to race times, it must also apply to an arbitrary VDOT value, which is what the 85 value is. I say that in reality a VDOT of 85 is physically impossible for any human to attain.

I was under the impression that the 85 was just a mathematical extension of actual human-tested numbers, to incorporate values at least up to the current world record. I'm pretty sure Jack doesn't get to test Bekele in the lab.

What exactly is "wrong" about that?

As far as the silly "mental barrier" argument, I am pretty sure that elite American distance runners will do what they do regardless of Jack's book. I don't think they need you looking out for them, thanks.

Why are you going on and on about a mean value for elite athletes?

Did you read: J. Daniels and J.R. Gilbert , "Oxygen Power: Performance Tables for Distance Runners", 1979?

From:

http://www.simpsonassociatesinc.com/oxypwr.html

"In 1979, Jack Daniels and Jimmy Gilbert published "Oxygen Power. Performance Tables for Distance Runners". ... The tables were generated using two regression equations: (1) relating oxygen consumption with velocity, and (2) predicting the amount of time one can run at a given percentage of VO2max. By combining these two equations, ... and looking for convergence for Newton-Raphson curve fitting analysis, one can then mathematically match up a predictable racing time expected at a given distance for someone having a particular VDOT index."

My math is rusty, but is a mean defined as "using two regression equations", "combining them", and "looking for convergence for Newton-Raphson curve fitting analysis"?

From

http://run-down.com/statistics/calcs_explained.php

The standard predictions for calculating VO2 Max are:

percent_max = 0.8 + 0.1894393 * e^(-0.012778 * time) + 0.2989558 * e^(-0.1932605 * time)

vo2 = -4.60 + 0.182258 * velocity + 0.000104 * velocity^2

vo2max = vo2 / percent_max

where time is in minutes and velocity is in meters per minute.

Plug 12:37 in for 5K and you get 85.04 ml/kg/min.

(sound of crickets chirping)

I'm not a mathematician, and neither is Jack Daniels. If he was, then he would be able to answer my questions himself.

However, Jack has done valuable work on running economy. With this information, he shows that there is no equation for calculating someones VO2 max from their running times.

The important question I am asking is: can a runner with a relatively low VO2 max and a very high oxygen economy run 12.37 or quicker?

The answer is most probably yes. But first we need clarification of whether the low and high values for elite runners are accurate, and what different phsyical characteristics apply to runners with wide variations in running economy.

Also, can someone explain to me why the lower numbers on Jack's VDOT chart have apparently superior economy.

Could it be that Jack's partner in Mathematics got the numbers wrong?

Shut up with the stupid mean value. The Vdot is just a way to determine what paces to train at not give a Vo2 max number.

wellnow wrote:

I'm not a mathematician, and neither is Jack Daniels. If he was, then he would be able to answer my questions himself.

However, Jack has done valuable work on running economy. With this information, he shows that there is no equation for calculating someones VO2 max from their running times.

The important question I am asking is: can a runner with a relatively low VO2 max and a very high oxygen economy run 12.37 or quicker?

The answer is most probably yes. But first we need clarification of whether the low and high values for elite runners are accurate, and what different phsyical characteristics apply to runners with wide variations in running economy.

Also, can someone explain to me why the lower numbers on Jack's VDOT chart have apparently superior economy.

Could it be that Jack's partner in Mathematics got the numbers wrong?

You think somebody with a relatively low VO2 max could run 12:37? I'd guess not; the time has only been run by one person, who likely has both excellent VO2 max and excellent running economy--economy so great that it is unlikely to be improved upon significantly. A runner who is going to break the record is therefore going to have to have similarly sterling economy as well as exceptional VO2 max.

Not all elite-level performances are the same; there is a significant difference between running a marathon is 2:09 and running a 5k in 12:37; you may be able to have a low-70's VO2 max and run 2:09 with ridiculous economy--but you're still a LONG way away from the 5k record.

Did you mean to say you understood the concept of VDOT?

In your important question, we would first need to clarify what you mean by "relatively low", and "very high"? The obvious answer is if "very high" is high enough, and "relatively low" is not too low, then yes. Otherwise, no.

Whether high or low values of measured VO2max are accurate depend on those measurements, not VDOT tables. Finding your VDOT doesn't require measuring oxygen, (it's a function of time and speed) so says nothing about VO2max or economy, alone. No one can infer that low VDOTs have superior economy because you are missing crucial input data about oxygen. That makes your question, and faulty speculation moot. You could infer, that for similiar race times, low measured VO2maxes are coupled with high economies, but that's a separate discussion than one about the VDOT tables, of which you want to be so critical.

BTW, elite runners can only have high VDOTs.

But I'm wondering, what can it possibly mean that the VDOT index numbers are wrong? There's some amibiguity, because the purpose is not stated. Do you mean they are bad estimates for VO2max? Of course, economy is the fudge factor that explains the difference between a curve fit calculation, and a laboratory measurement. Do you mean they misapplied their algorithms to the original data, and drew invalid conclusions from invalid calculations? Or maybe you mean, that since the curve was fit in 1979, when the 5K record was 13:08 (VDOT of 81), that the curve fit might diverge significantly at 85, and needs to be refit with new data.

Why does mapping an arbitrary index of 80 to 12:37 make more sense to you than an index of 85? Did you take the original data and re-apply the algorithms as described to come up with lower values? Or are you using some brown-tinged benchmark to gauge the accuracy?

It would make more sense to ask your questions, if you stuck to measured VO2max and economy values. Why are you trying to link these kinds of questions to criticisms about VDOT tables?

Because he doesn't understand what he's talking about.

wellnow - dear god please stop it!!!!!!!!!

Jtupper takes time to respond to a posters question and you have to hijack to show you pseudo superiority. Has there ever been a single aspect of training where you were not the final authority?

Personally I feel very confident that Jack's tables are sound. I also hope that he continues to read and respond despite guys like you.

Yes, I do think that a runner with a relatively low VO2 max can run 12.37 or quicker.

Why do runners have such different oxygen uptakes and economies?

Here is some recent research that may help provide an answer:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14915-a-short-heel-helps-runners-go-the-distance.html

You hit the nail on the head when you said:

"Why does mapping an arbitrary index of 80 to 12:37 make more sense to you than an index of 85?"

Because the linking of a specific pace to a VDOT is arbitrary.

The problem with the VDOT tables is that they are based on a linear rise in VDOT. This completely contradicts the notion of training to improve running economy, which is the central tenet of Dr Daniels' research.

Faceit wrote:

wellnow - dear god please stop it!!!!!!!!!

Jtupper takes time to respond to a posters question and you have to hijack to show you pseudo superiority. Has there ever been a single aspect of training where you were not the final authority?

Personally I feel very confident that Jack's tables are sound. I also hope that he continues to read and respond despite guys like you.

You are mistaken if you think that the VDOT tables are sound, they are fundamentally flawed.

You are also mistaken if you think that someone can publish unsound data without criticism. This is how science works.

The VDOT tables are a tautology. It takes a VDOT of 85 to run 12:37 because that's what a 12:37 corresponds to.

I don't think of the VDOT tables as a scientific value. They are a useful approximation, that's all.

Wellnow,

Out of fairness to you and other coaches can you reveal to us your name, so that we can attribute your philosophies and questions appropriately when discussing them. When discussing some of your points on the "economy" of running and "skill" of running with my fellow coaches I'd like to cite you by name rather than "wellnow" from the LetsRun message board.

Thanks

People have repeatedly posted on here the wellnow is Jon Orange. I don't know if that's right or not but that's what people say.