lexel wrote:
As you know, i do not like the VDOT tables, opposite to you :) but some people here are using it.
The article you shared is not correct on everything as e.g also a CV+ Rep, between CV and vVO2max is aerobic and not anaorobic.
The CV 2 parameter approach has its uncertainty(+-3%), and there are day to day variations. However, we should train above and below CV with a safety margin, agreed here with the article and never claimed different.
I’m an objective and equal opportunity analyzer. You could be too, it’s never too late to change.
I like VDOT for the simple reason that Daniels’ formulas are publicly available and with a small amount of code and lesser amount of ingenuity, can be used to calculate paces based on race duration, rather than distance, and accommodate ideas such as CS. It’s generalizable and adaptable, but by no means declarative and infallible .
Simpler yet would be using straight percentages of a race distance to lay out your training zones. It certainly works for Renato Canova.
Regarding the article, Davis literally says, “In coaching terms, I think of critical speed as separating “high-end aerobic” speeds from “anaerobic” speeds. I tend to avoid “anaerobic” as a term in most cases but it does seem apt here.”
You seem to be nitpicking over terms that not even physiologists can settle on. Revert to first paragraph.