Question for jtupper or other training pace gurus about determining VDOT

Ninetonite wrote:

Every lost weight is the result in water lost first and fat tissue and only further up muscle lost.

Less than 7-8 percent of the total weight lost isn’t muscle lost.

The muscle lost is always some percent of the total weight lost and you may observe near the same muscle percent lost for the same percent of the total weight lost.

Someone lost 35 pounds. How much is muscle just depends how much is the 35 pounds lost from the total weight lost percent.

None of that makes any sense.

I try once again step by step. May be the way you understand.

1 pound lost. No muscle lost. Just body liquid lost. May be you piss and you lost something in your weight.

5 pound lost. No mucle lost. Just liquid lost and may be some body fat.

10 pound lost. Most of it it´s liquid lost, some body fat and one minimum of muscle lost.

Try starve for some days to a few weeks. In the first 2-3 days you lost water, the 3rd up to the 1st week you lost liquids and fat and only after the first week it´s when you start to loose muscle. Liquids are easy and faster to loose that´s why it´s possible survive with no protein and no fat at all for longer period than without liquid intake.

wellnow wrote:

I will never be a believer in mathematical formulae for predicting race times or training times.

I'll try to tone it down a little, but here's a practical example of applied mathematics.

I know a guy, who's a pretty decent masters runner. Here are some recent race times, over the last few years, and the corresponding VDOTs:

800 02:06.3 67.34

1500 04:00.7 69.87

5000 15:15.7 68.22

10000 31:56.0 67.64

21.0975 1:09:24 67.02

42.195 2:29:50 66.40

As you can see, according to his VDOT scores, he is quite consistent at all distances, around 67-68, showing a little preference for the 1500m. Even 800m is in line, but note VDOT is not as reliable for 800m.

You might expect this kind of broad consistency from a seasoned veteran.

Note, he describes himself the same way, as a stronger middle distance runner than marathon runner, so VDOT is not way out of line for him.

The same table with Purdy points:

800 02:06.3 678.32

1500 04:00.7 819.76

5000 15:15.7 805.17

10000 31:56.0 809.1

21.0975 1:09:24 808.55

42.195 2:29:50 803.44

Using a completely different reference, we see the same consistency across the board, with a showing of strength at 1500. (Note Purdy is more reliable for 800m, so a 2:06, while still a very respectable time for a masters athlete, is relatively worse than the other times).

Now, for example, if we saw high numbers for 800/1500m, and a consistent degradation at longer distances, as is often the case with younger runners, we might conclude he has what "Hadd" calls, a "loose" or "no relationship" between his race times, and would benefit from a period of Hadd's Phase 1 training, or Lydiard's marathon training to build endurance and stamina. This usually improves times across the board, while bringing the relationship of the longer events closer.

wellnow wrote:

I would like to discuss the biomechanical issues pertaining to running economy, because this is a very imporatant coaching issue.

Here's a link you might be interested in, listing a bunch of bio-mechanical factors important for running economy (written by a couple of Dr. Noakes students):

I know that guy quite well. Last year he actually ran an 800 PR 2.05.6 and then a 15.38 5000 two and a half hours later.which suggests he could run somewhat faster for both distances? Anyway, not bad for a 45 year old.

He also ran that 1500 and 10k just a week apart, again probably some room for improvement.

I think that if he sticks with the shorter distances for a while and moves back up to the Marathon in a few years, he might get better results.

As for comparing those results by mathematical relationship, you have to bear in mind that those performances were set six years apart in different weather conditions and the half marathon was on a very hilly course, so those variables make comparison somewhat difficult, dontcha think?

Regarding running action and economy. I don't reccomend Pose Method, all that falling forwards nonsense has been debunked on this website. Yes we use gravity to store energy elastically, but we should be talking about what the feet actually should do and this was not really adressed in the Science of sport article.

Barefoot running was briefly mentioned. I actually did 3 miles barefoot today, the advantage of this is that you learn to use your feet in a different way to the way you run with shoes. My reccomendation for increasing economy is that we learn to do an extra push against the ground and the achiles tendon to store extra energy, and running barefoot teaches you how to do this. In this way you can increase your stride slightly and reduce oxygen cost in such a way that the faster you run, the more you can save if you can get the technique right and maintain it throughout the race. For this reason, runners will be able to keep running faster and faster times. In essence, the faster you run with good technique the more potential you have to run even faster.

So what would be the limiting factor in this approach? I think that the more you try to lengthen your stride, the more you must rely on good core strength to help you reduce ground reaction time whilst applying force. Learning a longer stride is difficult. Think about how we run into a strong headwind, with no problem, we just run 20 or 30 seconds per mile slower or whatever, but when we turn around, we only improve by about 5 or 10 seconds per mile with the wind behind us. It's very difficult to get that extra stride length and requires a lot of practise.

I'm the first one to agree that predictions in an ideal world may not extrapolate to the real world, for any number of real-world reasons.

Nevertheless, for this master, the model worked quite well, in spite of all those other variables. This guy is a model maker's dream.

My only point is that these models can be a useful tool (even when it fails to predict correctly) to identify potential weaknesses, or potential targets for a new distance.

Of course there are other tools.

The point I found interesting in the Sports Scientists article was the bulleted list of several factors that are important to economy. They don't cover subjects in-depth, at that site, but help provide a context for understanding things (in this case, how to interpret the recent economy measurements of Zersenay Tadese, and some thoughts on POSE and barefoot running). They didn't push POSE either, but took a softer position that improving bad form brings, well improvements.

Voice of Ray-san wrote:

This guy is a model maker's dream.

Well thanks Ray-san, as his coach, it's good to know that I'm doing something right.

I think simple aritmetic is fine, such as 5k pacex2+1minute=10k pace. Or 800pacex2=1500pace. These work well for a long distance runner but not for an 800m runner. As many experienced Marathon runners know; predictions for the Marathon are potentially dangerous because it's so easy to get carried away in the first few miles, running at 'target pace' and dying in the last few miles. The race really begins at 20 miles. In fact the Marathon distance is very nearly 20 miles plus 10k, so maybe we should think of it as a 20 miles run plus a 10k race, maybe that would be a good training strategy, anyone tried it?

Regarding the Science of Sport articles, There are some things about economy that should be discussed more. For example, do the taller runners, being heavier, get more elastic return, whereas the lighter runners have a better strength to weight ratio? And how do these factors affect running economy etc?

The figures for Zarsenay Tadesse's economy are obviously out by a long long way. Also it's a pity that the economy graph doesn't go up to higher speeds, these would show what happens to economy at faster paces.

Dr. Jack;

Do you have a current email address that you could share? I'd like to present you with a question. Thanks

Bump

yep

wellnow wrote:

I'm pretty confident on this one. Would you care to bet a three figure sum against me?

Is this bet still available?

Can we do a four figure sum?