1 year ago
09/20/2018 1:13am CDT
The VDOT value is taken from the VO2max (PB on 3200 meters), but it could be taken from any other distance it was the same.

It only gives the athlete's value in reference to the world records, but so commits the considerable error of the athlete as homogeneous in all distances.

In addition, part of the estimates uses the formula of Riegel with a coefficient of 1.06 on all distances and this is also a generalization that makes the athlete homogeneous, while he is not so.

Every athlete, always in reference to the excellent, that is to the world records, has only one better value that characterizes his attitudes. One can compete in many distances, but only in a distance will approach the excellent in a mathematical sense.

If you consider a graph with in abscissa the race distances, and in the ordinate the time at km, with the world records, you will get a curve. This athlete does not exist because he would be a Frankenstein with the speed of Bolt, Daniel Komen's VO2 max and the aerobic threshold of Kipchoge.

If you consider a graph with in abscissa the race distances, and in the ordinate time at km, with the world records, you will get a curve. This athlete does not exist because he would be a Frankenstein with the speed of Bolt, the VO2 max by Daniel Komen and the aerobic threshold of Kipchoge.

But if you report on this curve the real values of an athlete who maybe races from 1500 meters to the marathon , you will see that only one value is the one that comes closest to this curve.

That is his main attitude, while the values of the remaining races move away from the curve in a fan-like manner, the further one moves away from the main attitude.

This analysis is missing from Daniels' calculation. Each athlete has his own curve, the more points you have and the more you can discover his attitudes and then the rhythms to be followed in training in each area in a perfect way.