Tinman CV pace/ int. muslce fiber question.

otter wrote:

APupNamedZeus wrote:

As Tinman says, there's not such thing as different energy systems. It's all ATP hydrolysis.

This is true but I do not know anyone that says otherwise.

Daniels, for one, and training systems similar to Daniels with paces based on v02max, LT, and similar thresholds. It's really not uncommon. Some of the best-known coaches in the sport focus on energy systems, although it's an unsettled question how accurate the model is.

Veohtu Max wrote:

otter wrote:

This is true but I do not know anyone that says otherwise.

Daniels, for one, and training systems similar to Daniels with paces based on v02max, LT, and similar thresholds. It's really not uncommon. Some of the best-known coaches in the sport focus on energy systems, although it's an unsettled question how accurate the model is.

Pretty sure Daniels popularized the energy system model amongst most coaches.

I have followed tinman for many years and CV pace used to be 45 minute race pace. Then, for some reason, he changed it to 30-35 minute pace.

There are mile reps in tinmans training system, but they are run at LT pace.

So your critique of Tinman is that he's just like James Li? If his technique is similar or identical to other great coaches, you see that as a bad thing?

I have learned a lot from his training discussions. I don't care if his ideas are derivative if he explains them clearly (he does) and they work (they do).

Huehue wrote:

Veohtu Max wrote:

When talking about energy systems they are all referring to regeneration.

It’s another one those terms that gets thrown around. Like when we talk about lactate threshold. The wrong term but we all know what is meant.

Daniels, for one, and training systems similar to Daniels with paces based on v02max, LT, and similar thresholds. It's really not uncommon. Some of the best-known coaches in the sport focus on energy systems, although it's an unsettled question how accurate the model is.

Pretty sure Daniels popularized the energy system model amongst most coaches.

otter wrote:

Huehue wrote:

Pretty sure Daniels popularized the energy system model amongst most coaches.

Kind of messed up where I placed that. Anyway, Daniels and others refer to regeneration when talking about the “energy systems”

webby wrote:

So your critique of Tinman is that he's just like James Li? If his technique is similar or identical to other great coaches, you see that as a bad thing?

I have learned a lot from his training discussions. I don't care if his ideas are derivative if he explains them clearly (he does) and they work (they do).

You clearly didn’t read my post carefully if you think I’m critiquing him by coaching in a similar way. I’d like to know where i said it was a bad thing? I said his training works, just that it’s not as unique as some believe it to be.

Reading and the alphabet are not original, we are still thankful for the teacher that taught US.

Most people credit the person they heard it from first.

Just relax. There is a generation of coaches learning of concepts for the first time from Tom. He has his slant and reasoning.

Tom has been passionately studying and working on his craft for a long time. He has helped many people along the way.

The anonymous internet trolls will always discredit, but there is an absence of those that have worked with or know Tom that have anything bad to say. Every human has their quirks.

If he were wrong or bad at what he does, he would not have gone from his roots, to where he is today. It has been a slow, steady, passionate climb, and I for one and happy for him. I wish him and the athletes he trains continued success.

Tom is simply trying to help others speed up their understanding of the sport for their success. That alone deserves credit.

As always, you are always free to tune out if you disagree.

When I read Tinman threads over 10-15 years ago on here it was CV pace was closer to 12km-15km race pace (for a fast guy)....now I guess it is closer to 30min pace...which is still slower than 10km race pace for a fast guy. But the difference between doing faster 400m repeats, vs 1km repeats, vs is a long run vs, hill sprints is the % use of the muscle fibers and types and "conversion properties." So you get some fast twitch fibers with more endurance characteristics with the threshold/CV training. A lot of these guys are fast already with plenty of FT fibers...they just need stamina to maintain a higher % of max speed over greater distances. More fatigue resistant fibers that can improve running economy in targeted distance races/events. The 400s and hill sprints don't seem to lend to this kind of "evolution" of intermediate fibers/properties - whereas CV/Threshold/Marathon Training does...or at least more effectively does. Then of course the utilization and clearance of lactate is also important as well as mitochondria development/capillary bed development etc.

well,, wrote:

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

Yeah he has said explicitly recently that it is 30-35min race pace. And he typically mentions 1k or shorter reps, but he typically mentions overal volume and has talked about longer repeats before too. Maybe on his forum but I know I’ve seen it

I have followed tinman for many years and CV pace used to be 45 minute race pace. Then, for some reason, he changed it to 30-35 minute pace.

[/quote]

I think this gets at the meat of the difference. For someone who already has a good deal of natural speed (ft fibers) then training them to be more aerobically powerful while doing just a little bit to maintain neuromuscular efficiency (through strides and a few relaxed 200s) makes a lot of sense.

The reason that hill sprints or fast 400s don't do a lot to train the intermediate fibers to be more aerobic is that stimulus is not being applied long enough. If you run a 400 from a fairly rested state, your cells will be forced to rely on a greater amount of anaerobic glycolysis as the circulatory system ramps up to deliver blood to the muscles. Then, because the rep is short, you stop before the cells have really had a chance to utilize oxygen at maximum capacity. Those intermediate fibers will spend a greater percentage of the workout in the anaerobic zone and therefore develop more anaerobic capacity, which is great if you're a 400/800 type.

APupNamedZeus wrote:

CV pace is about efficiency. What pace allows you to work at a moderate effort for a long amount of time? That happens to be CV pace. CV seems to be a "sweet spot" that moderately stresses the body without pushing you into exhaustion or overtraining.

My understanding of Critical Power (coming from cycling) when you don't attach a specific number to it is that it generally represented the power output one could sustain for about 40-50 minutes. However, the Critical Power curve represented the max power one could sustain for all time periods from about 2-3 minutes and longer. For instance, the power you could sustain for 8 minutes would be CP8. The power you could sustain for 20 minutes would be CP20, etc.

It's sort of weird reading about CV as if Tinman made it up. People have been using this concept since the 1920's I believe (Hill, 1925), but for sure at least since the 1960s (Monod & Scherrer, 1965).

Using MLSS (maximal lactate steady state) or ~ 4mmol are basically the same as CV as it's being described here as well, yes?

It would allow for better communication if people would put a number after "CV" to indicate what length of time they are referring to. If it's the velocity one can sustain for 30 minutes then call it CV30'. If it's the velocity one can sustain for a 15K then call it CV15K. If it's the velocity once can sustain at 4mmol call it CV4mmol. Simply saying CV is too ambiguous.

Here's some more info on what I was talking about earlier.

https://www.gssiweb.org/sports-science-exchange/article/the-critical-power-concept-and-high-intensity-exercise-performance

Agree with this comment to an extent as I've followed Tom for years and have also been coached by him, and he used to more commonly refer to "45-minute race pace" while now his short-hand reference seems a little faster. But in general you guys are all overthinking the "exact" CV pace. There's not an exact pace. It's a range, typically in the area of 88-92% of vo2max as some have said (sometimes he says "90%"), and that was always the case. Tom is practical and he's not focused on 90% being better or worse than 91% or 89%. The body is not that exact. He has said, though, that you will typically focus on the faster end of the range if you're training for shorter events and the slower end for longer events, but again that's not a hard rule. For what it's worth, I replugged my times into his online calculator and, as a 34+ minute 10km runner, it's showing a range of slightly faster than 10km pace to slightly slower than 12km pace.

[snipped from above]:

I have followed tinman for many years and CV pace used to be 45 minute race pace. Then, for some reason, he changed it to 30-35 minute pace.

Sage, a lot of these guys that you consider “fast” already is who Tom claims were not fast. He mentioned Drew’s top 400m capabilities in a podcast and he considered him to have relatively average speed and FT composition. Another guy who ran well for himself in the 1500 last year who was even more of a slowpoke was Sam Parsons.

I’m not saying I necessarily disagree with you or agree with Tom, but that is what he claims and we are talking about how he trains people in particular. According to him, a big reason why CV works is because of the layering he does. CV or 200s/hill sprints/400s or whatever in isolation is moderately effective but not optimal in his regards.

I think people are looking way too much into CV in of itself. Instead, the focus should be on his layering of workouts. Later in his training programs he actually assigns a fair amount of volume of fast work (6x200m at 800 effort!). Doing it after 5000m work is too risky and doing it after threshold is not as optimal but still good/conservative. I think that is what Tom is ultimately referring to when he “keeps the ball rolling.” All year round there is a constant, huge aerobic/anaerobic component at all times in CV + speed. One doesn’t work as well unless the other is there in his opinion.

Honestly, no he doesn’t do anything revolutionary. People have been layering workouts for a long time. I have yet to see a coach do it as extensively and for as long as Tom does throughout a season. I think that’s the key. Not much deviation is boring, but it’s good and gets the job done. A lot of coaches try to get fancy. Distance running is not complicated but it is also very easy to mess it up if you do something wrong for too long. Tom seems to avoid that at all costs.

Former Sub 14:00 wrote:

Sage, a lot of these guys that you consider “fast” already is who Tom claims were not fast. He mentioned Drew’s top 400m capabilities in a podcast and he considered him to have relatively average speed and FT composition.

This is when you know someone thinks their training is greater than it really is. Who in their right mind thinks Drew has average speed? He's one of the fastest HS runners of all time, coming in at 3rd in the 1500/mile and barely missing the top-10 in the 800. It's idiotic to think he has anything close to average speed.

Ego Issues wrote:

Former Sub 14:00 wrote:

Sage, a lot of these guys that you consider “fast” already is who Tom claims were not fast. He mentioned Drew’s top 400m capabilities in a podcast and he considered him to have relatively average speed and FT composition.

This is when you know someone thinks their training is greater than it really is. Who in their right mind thinks Drew has average speed? He's one of the fastest HS runners of all time, coming in at 3rd in the 1500/mile and barely missing the top-10 in the 800. It's idiotic to think he has anything close to average speed.

Drew has only average speed over 400m, his kick is weak on the international level. That is what they mean, not his 1500/mile/800 times.

Speed means fast as in sprinting wrote:

Ego Issues wrote:

This is when you know someone thinks their training is greater than it really is. Who in their right mind thinks Drew has average speed? He's one of the fastest HS runners of all time, coming in at 3rd in the 1500/mile and barely missing the top-10 in the 800. It's idiotic to think he has anything close to average speed.

Drew has only average speed over 400m, his kick is weak on the international level. That is what they mean, not his 1500/mile/800 times.

MFer ran 1:48 in high school and you're telling me he's got an average 400 time. STFU!

Ego Issues wrote:

Speed means fast as in sprinting wrote:

Drew has only average speed over 400m, his kick is weak on the international level. That is what they mean, not his 1500/mile/800 times.

MFer ran 1:48 in high school and you're telling me he's got an average 400 time. STFU!

Yes, that is exactly what I'm telling you, fool. A 51 flat dude with stamina can run 1:48. The strong kicking 1500m men can run 400m in 46.x (Marcin Lewandowski is an example.) Seb Coe could run a 46.x 400m. Drew aint going anywhere near that fast over 400m, doubtful he will ever break 50.0. So at the end of a top flight race, kickers like Lewandowski or Robbie Andrews blow past Drew like he's walking.

You're welcome (for teaching you something about middle distance.)