Jack Daniels' Running Formula - Page 4 - Triathlon Week

11-04-2004, 08:39 PM

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DOtid.3044$8i.2810@trnddc04...
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>>On 2004-11-04, Tony <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>
>>> To perform best in shorter races (<10k) VO2max is most important. For
>>> longer races it must be sufficient, but is not by any means the only or
> even
>>> the most important variable. Derek Clayton and Frank Shorter had lower
>>> VO2max's but ran very well at the marathon distance, including a
> world-best
>>> by Clayton.
>>
>>That could be due to running economy also.
>
> Running economy is far too vague to explain away such differences IMO.
>
>>
>>> Lactate threshold and other factors are more important in longer races,
> but
>>> there seems to be only cursory coverage of LT in most running books I've
>>> looked over this year.
>>
>>Glover and Daniels both devote a substantial amount of space to this. So
>>does Noakes (though he actually spends a lot of time criticising the
>>notion
>>of LT)
>
> I'm reading Glover's book TCRH, and I see less than 2 pages describing the
> LT concept, a very short chapter on tempo runs, and a decent chapter on
> intervals but nothing on LT. I've already returned Daniels to the
> library.
> Noakes I haven't read yet, and if he is critical of the single point LT
> concept, then I agree with him; but I don't know how anyone can ignore the
> importance of the effort vs. blood-lactate curve in training and racing.
> Does Noakes dispute that lacate is a limiting factor?

Lactate is not a limiting factor; it is more likely the increase in
acidity. One can infuse lactate into the blood of an exercising person and
not get a decrease in performance. There is even some recent dispute that
the change in acidity is as negative as once thought.
There are numerous methods for picking the "LT" and most correlate well
with performance (see Coyle for his work with cyclists in one classic
paper).

>
>>
>>> Tempo runs and LT intervals are covered, but there
>>> seems to be very little to assist runners in determining their LT pace
>>> and/or heart rate,
>>
>>Daniels does provide a way to determine it -- punch in your race time, and
>>predict it from your vdot. Sure it's imprecise, but LT is not all that
>>well
>>defined anyway, and your tempo runs will probably be just fine if you are
>>a few seconds per mile fast or slow.
One can easily estimate LT from 10K or 15K pace or at least get close
enough.

>
> Because the effort vs. blood-lactate curve is exponential, of course it's
> difficult to choose a precise "threshold" on that curve, but a region of
> effort that constitues a threshold for longer races can be narrowed down.
> For cyclists, and for that matter, trail runners, pace cannot be used to
> measure effort. In cycling, HR, LTHR and (more recently) wattage power
> meters, are the accepted ways of measuring effort.
Heart rate is even less useful in cycling than running. Power is the
way to go with cycling. Everything else is poor (although RPE would be the
next best thing--either go high tech all the way or low tech all the way).
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] has good support for the power over HR model.

>
>>> and very little discussion of the variability of LT.
>>
>>What should they be discussing ?
>>> It's either given as a fixed % of HR or a certain pace.
>>
>>Why not ? It's probably as good a guess as any other.
>
> IMO they should be discussing the concept of metabolism at various speeds,
> lactate accumulation and removal at sub-anaerobic speeds, and training to
> specifically increase the ability to process lactate. They discuss the
> training, but not these concepts. Also they should discuss how the
> blood-lactate vs. effort curve changes over time (sometimes dramatically)
> both with different forms of training and seasonally.
>
>>Even if you actually measure it in the lab, the notion of LT is somewhat
>>arbitrary, so even knowing the lab measurements, you could argue about
>>what
>>your LT "really" is.
>
> That's not true of cyclists like Lance Armstrong (and probably many
> triathletes), who use the concept of LT heavily in their training.
There is not a "point" for LT; to a scientist it is a concept more than
some clear cut point. Sure, the scientist will give pace, power, HR, etc to
give a specific point for training purposes. But, the concept is what
really is important. So you are right about concept being the key.

>
>>But most of these books (with the exception of Noakes) are primarily about
>>the relevance of this to setting up a real training program, and for those
>>purposes, using a fixed percentage of MHR, or a pace extrapolated from a
>>race time will do just fine.
>
> For most people probably yes, but it's been shown that there is a wide
> variability in different individual's effort vs. blood-lactate curves, and
> training to improve LT has to be precise to be the most effective. I've
> been using HR to measure effort and to do LT tempo and intervals since
> 1999,
> and there is a marked difference between early season LT and peak LT, as
> different as: HR <160 vs. HR 178.
Interesting since Carl Foster has shown that HR at LT is consistent over
time even as pace/power improves.

>
>>
>>> VO2max training always gets top billing, when for most average runners
>>> LT
>>> training provides less risk of injury and more bang for the buck in HM
>>> to
>>> marathon training.
>>
>>IMO the Daniels book takes a fairly balanced approach as far as using
>>different intensities is concerned. For marathon training, he does put a
>>primary emphasis on LT training.
>
> I thought Daniels was very scientific and I liked looking over his book.
> As
> a trail runner it's not targeted to me.

Considering Jack has a PhD in exercise science, published some of the
early research in altitude and also has coached at Courtland for years, was
an Olympian and has coached/advised untold US runners, I am sure he will
appreciate your endorsement.

There is something to the notion that one needs to have a sufficiently high
VO2max to compete but that VO2max is not the only thing. LT and economy
also are important factors.

>
> -Tony
>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>--
>>Donovan Rebbechi
>>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
>

11-04-2004, 08:42 PM

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On 2004-11-04, Tony <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>That could be due to running economy also.
>>
>> Running economy is far too vague to explain away such differences IMO.
>
> The premise doesn't support the conclusion. The fact that you find
> "running
> economy" an unsatisfactory concept doesn't alter the math. So let's do
> some
> math ...
>
> VO2 max can vary by as much as 20% or so (see Daniels table -- the range
> is
> about 70-85). For LT to explain this difference, you'd need some runners
> to
> have a LT of about 70-75% VO2 max. We both know that this is not
> plausible.
Actually LT for even a reasonably trained person can be 85% of
VO2max; well-trained athletes can be 90-92% of VO2max for LT. The above is
confusing.
If an athlete has a VO2max of 80 ml/kg/min, LT in a top athlete
could be 72 ml/kg/min.

>
> On the other hand, running economy is multi-factorial, and *known* to vary
> widely between individuals. If you look at the table, you will see runners
> over short distances (where LT is hardly a factor) with large differences
> in VO2 max.
>
> The *aggregate* of vo2 max and running economy (Daniels VDOT) is highly
> predictive of performance. If you look at the *vdot* values of runners
> like
> Derek Clayton (over short distances like 5k or so) you would find that
> their
> vdot values would be right up there with the high vo2 max runners.
>
> The only problem with all this is that we don't have a very good
> understanding
> of either vdot, VO2 max or running economy.
>
>> I'm reading Glover's book TCRH, and I see less than 2 pages describing
>> the
>> LT concept, a very short chapter on tempo runs, and a decent chapter on
>> intervals but nothing on LT.
>
> The Glover book is not an exercise physiology text. It is written from a
> coaching perspective, so the emphasis is on the real world application
> (tempo
> runs) of the theory (LT). The application is more relevant to real-world
> training than the theory.
>
>> Noakes I haven't read yet, and if he is critical of the single point LT
>> concept, then I agree with him; but I don't know how anyone can ignore
>> the
>> importance of the effort vs. blood-lactate curve in training and racing.
>> Does Noakes dispute that lacate is a limiting factor?
>
> Noakes disputes that we even know what the true limiting factors are.
>
>> Because the effort vs. blood-lactate curve is exponential, of course it's
>> difficult to choose a precise "threshold" on that curve, but a region of
>> effort that constitues a threshold for longer races can be narrowed down.
>
> Daniels does this.
>
>> For cyclists, and for that matter, trail runners, pace cannot be used to
>> measure effort.
>
> You can acquire a feel for it by running on a track (possibly with a HRM),
> and then train by feel on the trails (possibly with the HRM again).
>
> In Bob Glovers training group, we often do tempo runs over hilly terrain,
> sometimes in the heat. Of course they're slow compared to tempo runs on a
> track.
>
>>>Why not ? It's probably as good a guess as any other.
>>
>> IMO they should be discussing the concept of metabolism at various
>> speeds,
>> lactate accumulation and removal at sub-anaerobic speeds, and training to
>> specifically increase the ability to process lactate. They discuss the
>> training, but not these concepts.
>
> These are coaching books, not exercise physiology texts.
>
> If you want more theory, your best bet would be something written by and
> for
> theorists -- Noakes or Martin/Coe.
>
>> Also they should discuss how the blood-lactate vs. effort curve changes
>> over
>> time (sometimes dramatically) both with different forms of training and
>> seasonally.
>
> If you're looking for confirmation of your world view, you might be
> disappointed. What you'll get out of reading Noakes is a sense of how
> little
> we truly understand the science of distance running.
>
>>>Even if you actually measure it in the lab, the notion of LT is somewhat
>>>arbitrary, so even knowing the lab measurements, you could argue about
>>>what
>>>your LT "really" is.
>>
>> That's not true of cyclists like Lance Armstrong (and probably many
>> triathletes), who use the concept of LT heavily in their training.
>
> Sure it is. You can use the concept of LT without knowing exactly what it
> is.
>
> The point, which you seem to miss, is that you don't need to be an expert
> on
> the theory (a questionable theory) to benefit from the training concept.
>
>> For most people probably yes, but it's been shown that there is a wide
>> variability in different individual's effort vs. blood-lactate curves,
>> and
>> training to improve LT has to be precise to be the most effective. I've
>
> LT is a fundamentally imprecise concept, therefore 'precise LT training'
> is
> an oxymoron.
>
> Can you quote a peer reviewed study that shows that 'precise LT training'
> has
> any advantages over 'imprecise LT training' ?
>
>> I thought Daniels was very scientific and I liked looking over his book.
>> As
>> a trail runner it's not targeted to me.
>
> Sure it is. Use HR training for your 'T' pace work, do the 'I' work over
> reps
> of about the right distance (e.g. 4x4 minutes), and use hills for the 'R'
> workouts.
>
> If you read the book carefully, you'll see that some of the workouts are
> supposed to be run by effort (not on a track). The way to adapt this to
> your own training would be to do this for all workouts.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-04-2004, 08:51 PM

There is some recent dispute over the acidity at exercise intensities even
being the limited factor. Not quite willing to buy in to the idea yet, but
who knows.

Oxygen availability is a limiting factor; in healthy people ventilation is
rarely the limiting factor. You can move lots of air in and out of the
lungs, but other problems occur. For instance at high exercise intensities,
SaO2 drops partly because the RBCs give up more O2 (Bohr Effect) but also
because the RBCs are moving very fast through the alveoli and do not have as
much time to pick up oxygen thus reducing the oxygen in the blood.

If oxygen availability is not an issue, why are endurance performances at
altitude negatively affected?

"steve common" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].invalid> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>but I don't know how anyone can ignore the
>>importance of the effort vs. blood-lactate curve in training and racing.
>>Does Noakes dispute that lacate is a limiting factor?
>
> I don't think he does dispute that. In all except pathological cases (or
> altitude changes) oxygen availability is not the limiting factor for
> performance in endurance events.
>
> Here's how I've understand it (biologists are welcome to put me
> straight) :
>
> Lactic acid does not just form to annoy runners. It forms and is used up
> as part of normal glucose metabolism. It's always there, but usually
> only fleetingly.
>
> It forms and doesn't get used if there isn't enough oxygen available.
> The higher your VO2max, the more you can do "complete" glucose
> metabolism, so leaving less unused lactic acid. The worse the oxygen
> debt, the greater the proportion of glucose which is only partly
> metabolised.
>
> Muscles don't like being acid. Too high an acid concentration in cells
> will kill them. When the acid level gets to high, a feedback mechanism
> prevents muscles from continuing to work so as to prevent them
> committing suicide, so to speak.
>
> Below the so-called lactate threshold, lactic acid does not accumulate
> in the working muscles in sufficient quantities to cause this mechanism
> to reduce their efficiency. The lactic acid concentration which causes
> significant loss of efficiency is highly variable from one individual to
> another.
>
> What LT training may do is not to change glucose metabolism very much
> but rather it allows you to evacuate - or if not, to buffer or otherwise
> tolerate - the lactic acid in the working muscles so that it doesn't
> limit performance so early.
>
> But then again, maybe not :-P~

11-04-2004, 08:53 PM

"steve common" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].invalid> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>
>>But VDOT isn't VO2max. I had my VO2max measured and it is no where near
>>my VDOT.
>
> Lower or higher? Did you have it measured on treadmill?
>
> I had mine measured at 63 by the sports medicin department of the
> regional hospital. Donovan's calculator page gives vdot of 58. Polar VO2
> estimate gave 61.

A difference of ~7% between measured and VDOT. Also, metabolic carts have
error in them.

11-04-2004, 08:57 PM

<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.uk> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.uk...
> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, steve common
> wrote:
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>>
>>>But VDOT isn't VO2max. I had my VO2max measured and it is no where near
>>>my VDOT.
>
>> Lower or higher? Did you have it measured on treadmill?
>
> VDOT lower than vo2max measure on a treadmill.
>
>> I had mine measured at 63 by the sports medicin department of the
>> regional hospital. Donovan's calculator page gives vdot of 58. Polar VO2
>> estimate gave 61.
>
> I had my vo2max measured at 67 with a gas analyser and have a VDOT of just
> under 50. Polar set at "top" gives me 62.
>
> Paul

Do not put too much satisfaction in metabolic carts. I have found many to
be way off. Some brands are notorious for running high and labs never worry
if their carts are running high especially if they are servicing people for
a fee.

In our lab in grad school, we had 2 brands of met carts. I tested myself
several times with each in a short period of time. The machines rarely were
within 5% of one another despite a meticulous calibration procedure for each
cart.

11-04-2004, 10:34 PM

In article <igDid.4485$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].pas.earthlink. net>, Sam wrote:
>
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.uk> wrote in message
> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.uk...
>> In article <Fhlid.17064$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].pas.earthlink .net>, Sam
>> wrote:
>>> Nope, Jack came up with VDOT because one cannot actually measure
>>> VO2max
>>> without equipment. VDOT is a rough estimate of VO2max. The error occurs
>>> in
>>> running economy. Basically the formula assumes everyone has the same
>>> running economy and that is not true. Jack just refused to call his
>>> estimate VO2max. Not sure if that is explained in the book, but he
>>> mentioned at a lecture that I attended.
>>
>> But VDOT isn't VO2max. I had my VO2max measured and it is no where near
>> my VDOT.

> What part of "rough estimate" did you not understand?

The part were 49 was a "rough estimate" of 67.

Paul

11-04-2004, 11:50 PM

"Sam" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>If oxygen availability is not an issue, why are endurance performances at
>altitude negatively affected?

Sorry I took a shortcut (or got confused between maximum performance and
sustained) I was meaning that maximum O2 use in runners is limited at
the very end of O2's journey to the muscles and not anywhere along the
way from the atmosphere.

So I think this means I'll have to go back to some reading :-)

11-05-2004, 04:02 AM

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:57:25 GMT, "Sam" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>
>"Terry R. McConnell" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].edu> wrote in message
>news:41890428$0$114$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].edu...
>> In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.uk>,
>> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article
>>><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].giganews.com>, Harold
>>>Buck wrote:
>>>> No, this is not a new concept in sports drinks, it's a book about run
>>>> training. It seems to be pretty good to me so far. The basic idea is
>>>> that you estimate your VO2-max based on race performance and then set
>>>> your training paces based on that. It tells me, for example, that I
>>>> should be doing my long/easy runs at a faster pace than I've been doing,
>>>> which I've suspected for some time.
>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any comments on this book or its training methods?
>>>
>>>I think it's a great book and am following one of the marathon training
>>>plans. However, it's not estimating your VO2max, it uses a concept of VDOT
>>>which is a combination of your VO2max and running ecomomy. I can't offer
>>>any concrete proof that the training methods work as I've only just
>>>started following it, but I'm pretty confident it will.
>>>
>>>BTW, there's a new edition out this month.
>>
>> I think Vdot is velocity at VO2max, i.e, how fast you're going when you're
>> going fast. (Even though vdot sounds as if it ought to mean acceleration.)
> Nope, Jack came up with VDOT because one cannot actually measure VO2max
>without equipment. VDOT is a rough estimate of VO2max. The error occurs in
>running economy. Basically the formula assumes everyone has the same
>running economy and that is not true. Jack just refused to call his
>estimate VO2max. Not sure if that is explained in the book, but he
>mentioned at a lecture that I attended.
>
>
Does someone test or have an opinion on de watch from Suunto.
The T6 measures the epoc, see on [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
It should measure the vo2max more accurately.
I am in the process of buying aan new HRM, am thinking of the polar
s625x or suunto T6, although they are really expensive, they can alse
measure distance and speed.
What about the prodictive vo2max from polar, how good is it.

Gr. Roy

>>
>> I like JD's book, and his tables work very well at predicting my own
>> performances. So well, in fact, that I don't even bother doing the races
>> anymore. I just enter the number from JD's table in my running log and
>> spend
>> the extra time on the golf course.
>>
>> --
>> ************************************************** **********************
>> Terry R. McConnell Mathematics/215 Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1150
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 229B Physics Bldg [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>> ************************************************** **********************
>

11-05-2004, 06:46 AM

>snip<
> Considering Jack has a PhD in exercise science, published some of the
>early research in altitude and also has coached at Courtland for years, was
>an Olympian and has coached/advised untold US runners, I am sure he will
>appreciate your endorsement.
>
>There is something to the notion that one needs to have a sufficiently high
>VO2max to compete but that VO2max is not the only thing. LT and economy
>also are important factors.
>

The latter is what I was trying to say.

-Tony

11-05-2004, 08:00 AM

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>snip<

>The only problem with all this is that we don't have a very good
understanding
>of either vdot, VO2 max or running economy.

If VO2max, and these other things - running economy, vdot, LT etc. are not
well understood - then why is VO2max touted as such an important concept
above others? Getting enough oxygen is important yes, but so is supplying
energy and removing waste. This sum's up my issue with the running authors,
though I've only sampled a few books recently. Vdot seems to be a good
real-world estimate for training and racing, but it need not be associated
with VO2 IMO.

Of course my criticism is relatively uninformed compared to many here.
Indeed many things about LT and LT training seem to be in dispute. Some
articles say even testing with a lactate meter produces inconsistent
results. I've also read recently that Conconi's test may be invalid. Many
sources, including several running books report that using HR and
particularly LTHR is not a useful concept because of the same kind of
inconsistent results as with lactate meters. Still others say that
estimating the LTHR and using that for LT training yields great results, and
this has been my experience. Though I've seen references that suggest
training just above your LT is best, and that training at tempo under it
will not yield much improvement, I didn't come across definitive studies.

-Tony

ps. good luck to NYCMers...

11-05-2004, 08:12 AM

In article <asNid.4$gS1.1@trndny04>, Tony wrote:
> If VO2max, and these other things - running economy, vdot, LT etc. are not
> well understood - then why is VO2max touted as such an important concept
> above others? Getting enough oxygen is important yes, but so is supplying
> energy and removing waste. This sum's up my issue with the running authors,
> though I've only sampled a few books recently. Vdot seems to be a good
> real-world estimate for training and racing, but it need not be associated
> with VO2 IMO.

Effectively all vdot is is a race performance index, just like wava and purdy
indices. Almost everyone says that the best way to predict future race
performance is from past race performance. Predictions based on vo2max, LT,
height/weight ratio, age, inside leg measurement, might be interesting, but
nothing comes close.

What I think is interesting and might be addressed by vo2max and LT to some
extent, is potential. i.e. if you could apply some test to a couch potato
and say he could "potentially" run a 2:30 marathon because he has a vo2max
of 75 say, then perhaps he might start running rather than archery, whereas
if he had a vo2max of 30 the latter might be more appropriate.

I've looked but haven't read much on potential as opposed to prediction.

Paul

11-05-2004, 08:55 AM

On 2004-11-05, Tony <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>>snip<
>
>>The only problem with all this is that we don't have a very good
>> understanding
>>of either vdot, VO2 max or running economy.
>
> If VO2max, and these other things - running economy, vdot, LT etc. are not
> well understood - then why is VO2max touted as such an important concept
> above others?

Because it isn't. Your question is based on a false premise.

Bob Glover's training includes long intervals (for VO2 max), hills (running
economy, strength), and tempo runs (LT).

Jack Daniels training includes 'I' workouts (VO2 max specific), 'R' workouts
(running economy specific), and 'T workouts (LT specific). Jack Daniels
marathon training includes 'TLT workouts', long runs that include a tempo run
at both the start and finish, and 'MP' workouts (basically a long run at just
below LT). These are arguably among the most demanding of the workouts in
those programs, and they are LT specific.

You could complain that these books do not spend enough ink explaining the
theory of LT, but that misses the point -- these are not theory books. A
detailed treatment on different types of metabolism that you would consider
satisfactory would be almost as long as the entire Daniels book.

The bottom line -- it is simply incorrect to say that VO2 is given undue
attention. All the training programs that you've mentioned give plenty of
emnphasis to LT training. They don't explain it in depth, because the indepth
explanation is very complex and way beyond the scope of those books.

> Getting enough oxygen is important yes, but so is supplying
> energy and removing waste. This sum's up my issue with the running authors,
> though I've only sampled a few books recently.

Very few, as it happens. The problem is that you read books that are written
primarily from a coaching perspective (application) and then complain that
they are light on the theory. You're simply reading the wrong books.

The theory is given a much more comprehensive treatment in other books that
I have already named (Martin/Coe, Noakes, and any exercise physiology text)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-05-2004, 09:36 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote in message ...
>In article <asNid.4$gS1.1@trndny04>, Tony wrote:
>> If VO2max, and these other things - running economy, vdot, LT etc. are
not
>> well understood - then why is VO2max touted as such an important concept
>> above others? Getting enough oxygen is important yes, but so is
supplying
>> energy and removing waste. This sum's up my issue with the running
authors,
>> though I've only sampled a few books recently. Vdot seems to be a good
>> real-world estimate for training and racing, but it need not be
associated
>> with VO2 IMO.
>
>Effectively all vdot is is a race performance index, just like wava and
purdy
>indices. Almost everyone says that the best way to predict future race
>performance is from past race performance. Predictions based on vo2max, LT,
>height/weight ratio, age, inside leg measurement, might be interesting, but
>nothing comes close.

Yup, I agree that real-world race performance statistics are the best
predictors. Why then is Vdot associated, even in a loose way, with VO2max?
It seems unnecessary and perhaps even misleading.

>What I think is interesting and might be addressed by vo2max and LT to some
>extent, is potential. i.e. if you could apply some test to a couch potato
>and say he could "potentially" run a 2:30 marathon because he has a vo2max
>of 75 say, then perhaps he might start running rather than archery, whereas
>if he had a vo2max of 30 the latter might be more appropriate.

Potential is in many aspects of physiology. How are you going to find out
the VO2max of a couch potato? Also, this basket of other factors called
"running economy", which may include form and energy supply and everything
else, is clearly a very large factor -- so why all the talk about VO2max,
something that can be trained to an extent, but that is essentially
something you're born with? I would argue that one's muscle fibre makeup
limits their endurance potential as much if not more than VO2max. The only
proof I have is in the obvious - sprinters make poor endurance runners.

-Tony

>I've looked but haven't read much on potential as opposed to prediction.
>
>Paul

11-05-2004, 10:04 AM

On 2004-11-05, Tony <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>>Effectively all vdot is is a race performance index, just like wava and
>>purdy indices. Almost everyone says that the best way to predict future race
>>performance is from past race performance. Predictions based on vo2max, LT,
>>height/weight ratio, age, inside leg measurement, might be interesting, but
>>nothing comes close.
>
> Yup, I agree that real-world race performance statistics are the best
> predictors. Why then is Vdot associated, even in a loose way, with VO2max?

Because the model Daniels is using is based on a curve which plots time that
one can sustain a given percentage of VO2 max.

The curve is based on real data from real measurements.

It is possible to make a more complex model that also uses LT -- but that
requires more data, more measurements, and it would require more than one
race performance to estimate both parameters ("virtual vo2 max" and "virtual
LT"), so it's not at all clear that this is in any way more advantageous.

Given that 5k performance probably has more to do with VO2 max than it does
with LT -- *and* that 5k race performances predict performances up to half
marathon pretty accurately -- it is probably fair to say that the aggregate
of VO2 max and running economy alone are pretty good at predicting performance
in the races that most trainees will use to determine their vdot.

> It seems unnecessary and perhaps even misleading.

It seems that you simply didn't read the book carefully enough to understand
the model Daniels is using.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

11-05-2004, 01:46 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].co.uk>, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
wrote:

> In article <asNid.4$gS1.1@trndny04>, Tony wrote:
> > If VO2max, and these other things - running economy, vdot, LT etc. are not
> > well understood - then why is VO2max touted as such an important concept
> > above others? Getting enough oxygen is important yes, but so is supplying
> > energy and removing waste. This sum's up my issue with the running authors,
> > though I've only sampled a few books recently. Vdot seems to be a good
> > real-world estimate for training and racing, but it need not be associated
> > with VO2 IMO.
>
> Effectively all vdot is is a race performance index, just like wava and purdy
> indices.

"That's a real purdy index you got there, boy. Why doncha come over
here? Heh heh heh."

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson