Jack Daniels' Running Formula - Page 5 - Triathlon Week

11-05-2004, 02:19 PM

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

Fair enough. I never said I read Daniels, though it looked like a good
book. I borrowed many books to see which one looked best to read this Fall.
I'm reading Glover.

As I said in another post here: "Of course my criticism is relatively
uninformed compared to many here. Indeed many things about LT and LT
training seem to be in dispute." Thus admitting that I am here to learn.

-Tony

11-05-2004, 07:03 PM

On 2004-11-05, Tony <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>snip<
>>It seems that you simply didn't read the book carefully enough to
> understand
>>the model Daniels is using.
>
> Fair enough. I never said I read Daniels, though it looked like a good
> book. I borrowed many books to see which one looked best to read this Fall.
> I'm reading Glover.
>
> As I said in another post here: "Of course my criticism is relatively
> uninformed compared to many here. Indeed many things about LT and LT
> training seem to be in dispute." Thus admitting that I am here to learn.

Fair enough. I think you'll enjoy the more in-depth treatment that Noakes gives
to the theory.

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

11-06-2004, 04:15 AM

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VSOid.21$EE3.7@trndny09...
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote in message ...
>>In article <asNid.4$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.

Because man is basically a scientist with the urge to mathematically
quantify and invent formulas which produce tables so we can measure and
predict. For many things in life this works well but when one of the
variables is human physiology we enter an opaque world. I'm not
rejecting science, hell I was one, but I am suggesting not to become a
slave to bloody tables that typically approximate curves with straight
lines with minimal test subjects.

Train high was once the training rage and I'm sure there are/were
"scientific" data points/tables to show that was true. Now, it's sleep
high and train low. LT was once chiseled to pace P, now it's pace P-N.
Exercise Physiology has a long way to go. My shaggy dog point, use the
science as a guide but not dogmatically. Science keeps changing and so
do we. It's a equation with many unknowns and light years from linear.
Screw WAVA, Purdy etc. - learn how to read yourself. It's a frustrating
yet intriguing sport and you can't fall asleep at the wheel or for Tom
it's his his bike with a basket full of cans.

-DougF

11-06-2004, 04:32 AM

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>> 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.

And I take the liberty to add, not to well understood.

>> 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.

Because the science is not totally understood. To suggest for instance
that Author A knows all and Author B is wrong is not fair. To suggest
he is reading the wrong book is unfair or slightly obnoxious. Exercise
physiology is only a hair more advanced than the bodies handling of
protein, fat and carbs and weight control.

> 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)

So you are convinced we know all the "correct' way? How do you know we
are only 10% or 30% correct? Not to be a smart ass but we used to think
the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the solar
system.

-DF

11-06-2004, 08:56 AM

On 2004-11-06, Doug Freese <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote:

> Because the science is not totally understood. To suggest for instance
> that Author A knows all and Author B is wrong is not fair.

True, but I never suggested this.

> To suggest he is reading the wrong book is unfair or slightly obnoxious.
> Exercise

Right book for what ? If you tell me that you don't like Bob Glovers book
because it doesn't explain how to configure a web server, you're reading the
wrong book.

Not only is it not obnoxious, it is entirely correct.

My point is that *if* you're looking for an in-depth treatment of exercise
science, Daniels and Glover are not the right books. It's not that Daniels and
Glover are "wrong". It's that their books are primarily focused on dealing with
training principles that work in the real world, as opposed to technical
minutia.

> physiology is only a hair more advanced than the bodies handling of
> protein, fat and carbs and weight control.

Even ignoring problems I have with your, a comprehensive treatment of that
would be longer than the Daniels book. Daniels set out to write a concise book
on training, which would not be possible if he were to include 500 pages of
preamble on exercise physiology.

>> 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)
>
> So you are convinced we know all the "correct' way? How do you know we
> are only 10% or 30% correct?

I'm not arguing that we know the "correct" way, but we do know more about
exercise science than you'll find in the Glover or Daniels books. However,
I suspect that those who are primarily interested in setting up training
programs will for the most part find the treatment of the theory in both
Daniels and Glover to be adequate.

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

11-06-2004, 09:15 AM

You know guys, the more I think about it, the more I know I'm nothing
but a lowlife punk, and I'll only crash at mile 13 anyways. So, in
shame, something I live with on a daily basis, I am going to drop out.
TheBillRodgers was so right, I am a jerk
Sorry to waste all of your time.
Cheers!
Donovan Rebbechi (sig file deleted in shame)

11-06-2004, 09:18 AM

On 2004-11-06, Doug Freese <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Because man is basically a scientist with the urge to mathematically
> quantify and invent formulas which produce tables so we can measure and
> predict.

The point of having tables is that you need some means to communicate
information about training intensity to runners of varying ability. This is
a pragmatic coaching issue, not some obscure piece of scientific dogma.

The reason Daniels uses vdot to model VO2 max (and not LT) probably also boils
down to practical issues (availability of data).

But to get caught up on the fact that Daniels is using vdot to model vo2 max
misses the point -- the true test of a coaching method is not the theoretical
foundation of it, it's whether or not the method works.

> For many things in life this works well but when one of the
> variables is human physiology we enter an opaque world. I'm not
> rejecting science, hell I was one, but I am suggesting not to become a
> slave to bloody tables that typically approximate curves with straight
> lines with minimal test subjects.

I don't think anyone is suggesting becoming a slave to any tables, so your
position is uncontroversial.

As far as Daniels is concerned, I've written code that implements the formula
and it is nothing like a simple linear fit. There is a percent max vs time
sustainable curve (a 5 parameter exponential) and a VO2 vs pace curve (modelled
as a quadratic, though you could actually get a good fit with a linear curve)

> Train high was once the training rage and I'm sure there are/were
> "scientific" data points/tables to show that was true. Now, it's sleep
> high and train low. LT was once chiseled to pace P, now it's pace P-N.

It's true that "cutting edge" ideas come and go. Even today, we have some
who propose (or at least experiment with) pushing interval training to
ridiculous extremes.

But the fact remains that there are some tried-and-true ideas-- the notion of
building a good base, and sharpening. Even though Noakes is very science
oriented, he also does a good job at laying down "laws" -- practical, tried and
true ideas.

> do we. It's a equation with many unknowns and light years from linear.
> Screw WAVA, Purdy etc. - learn how to read yourself. It's a frustrating

Nice idea, but perhaps this is the reason why Daniels is one of the top coaches
and you're not. There's more to communicating about training than telling your
readers to "read themselves". You're no doubt aware that if you tell an
enthusiastic beginner to train at "an easy pace", or even "conversational
pace", they often end up doing a tempo run.

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

11-06-2004, 09:22 AM

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:15:31 -0500, Donovan Rebbechi <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>
>You know guys, the more I think about it, the more I know I'm nothing
>but a lowlife punk, and I'll only crash at mile 13 anyways. So, in
>shame, something I live with on a daily basis, I am going to drop out.
>TheBillRodgers was so right, I am a jerk
>Sorry to waste all of your time.
>Cheers!
>Donovan Rebbechi (sig file deleted in shame)

You whimp.

-DF

11-06-2004, 09:26 AM

You know, I really was a moron for voting for that idiot Bush. He is
such a lowlife, convicted felon, and murderer, that I can't believe I
was swayed by his cute butt. GWB SUCKS!
Doug

11-06-2004, 04:07 PM

"Doug Freese" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:15:31 -0500, Donovan Rebbechi <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>You know guys, the more I think about it, the more I know I'm nothing
>>but a lowlife punk, and I'll only crash at mile 13 anyways. So, in
>>shame, something I live with on a daily basis, I am going to drop out.
>>TheBillRodgers was so right, I am a jerk
>>Sorry to waste all of your time.
>>Cheers!
>>Donovan Rebbechi (sig file deleted in shame)
>
> You whimp.
>
> -DF

Not sent by me.

The real DougF

11-06-2004, 04:18 PM

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 00:07:43 GMT, "Doug Freese" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>
wrote:

>
>"Doug Freese" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote in message
>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].. .
>> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:15:31 -0500, Donovan Rebbechi <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>You know guys, the more I think about it, the more I know I'm nothing
>>>but a lowlife punk, and I'll only crash at mile 13 anyways. So, in
>>>shame, something I live with on a daily basis, I am going to drop out.
>>>TheBillRodgers was so right, I am a jerk
>>>Sorry to waste all of your time.
>>>Cheers!
>>>Donovan Rebbechi (sig file deleted in shame)
>>
>> You whimp.
>>
>> -DF
>
>Not sent by me.
>
>The real DougF
>

Bullshit you punk! I just traced it. Undoubtedly senility at work.

11-06-2004, 08:13 PM

"Doug Freese" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote in message news:<qv3jd.192276$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].rr.com >...
> And I take the liberty to add, not to well understood.

Obble dorf snuggin?

11-06-2004, 08:27 PM

"steve common" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].invalid> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "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 :-)

I think you should, since what you stated is clearly not correct.

Andy Coggan

11-07-2004, 02:58 AM

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

>I think you should, since what you stated is clearly not correct.

Could you maybe state what IS correct then? Or point me to a ressource
where I can find out more?

11-07-2004, 03:31 PM

Martin and Coe "Better Training for Distance Runners".

A good place to start.

"steve common" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].invalid> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> "Andy Coggan" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>I think you should, since what you stated is clearly not correct.
>
> Could you maybe state what IS correct then? Or point me to a ressource
> where I can find out more?