deleuze wrote:
Great coaching is maybe 60% about training methodology.
87% of all stats are made up 47% of the time
deleuze wrote:
Great coaching is maybe 60% about training methodology.
87% of all stats are made up 47% of the time
Sure
UmbrellaMan wrote:
I was listening to a podcast with Tom Schwartz and I was reminded about how much he dislikes goal pace training. I think Tom definitely presents a better argument, he is able to explain the physiology of training at goal pace vs. current fitness level.
What is Tinman’s argument against goal-pace training?
CaptainLife wrote:
UmbrellaMan wrote:
I was listening to a podcast with Tom Schwartz and I was reminded about how much he dislikes goal pace training. I think Tom definitely presents a better argument, he is able to explain the physiology of training at goal pace vs. current fitness level.
What is Tinman’s argument against goal-pace training?
Tinman derives his paces/ideal training paces off CURRENT ability, not "dream ability"/goal ability. He thinks that to optimally train the body, you should prescribe paces and workloads that are ideal for the performance level a body is currently capable off.
Brogan Austin did 0 miles at goal MP, and became US marathon champ.
Tinman would never train someone and say: "What do you want to run a 5k in?" and derive his paces off that goal time. He would go and say "what did you recently race a 5k in?", THEN prescribe paces off that current level, and trust in the process that if everything works out well the next race will be faster.
The current paces in that example of someone training for a 5k include threshold pace, marathon pace, CV pace, 5k pace, 3k pace, mile pace, 800 pace, etc. But a workout at 5k pace would use 40s/200 for a 16:40 5k runner, instead of 36s/200 for a 16:40 5k runner with a goal pace of 15:00 5k.
It is the same with Daniel's VDOT paces - current fitness not goal.
Bill B and Bill D used date pace and goal pace and they had some pretty damn good runners. Just use both they have a time and place, and hopefully date and goal pace merge
It’s not like you have a 4:30 athlete making his goal pace 3:43, it’s gonna be a realistic goal and they should make enough gains to turn goal pace into date pace
Bob schul country wrote:
deleuze wrote:
Great coaching is maybe 60% about training methodology.
87% of all stats are made up 47% of the time
This wasn't a statistical comment.
What coach is telling a 16:40 runner to consistently run at 15:00 flat pace because it's their goal? Maybe an occasional workout to change it up paces but nothing more.
I'm not trying to hate on tinman, I think some of his ideas are interesting but this isn't unique to him. Its basically a bare minimum to not being a horrible coach.
The problem is Tinman's entire philosphy has 98% of your training done at 10k pace or slower (for track runners). That can work to an extent, but eventually you will hit a HUGE plateau.
Training with different workouts at different pace with appropriate volume at current fitness pace. Over time your speed and endurance will improve so whatever the current fitness pace is becomes faster.
albanese wrote:
3 - The idea that you can run a pace in a race that you've never hit in practice is foolish
Clarify: are you saying that if a runner were to jog daily but run 2 tempos per week, he would not be able to run a mile or 5k race faster than that tempo pace? (I'm not asking if this is optimal training).
Runner10287 wrote:
Training with different workouts at different pace with appropriate volume at current fitness pace. Over time your speed and endurance will improve so whatever the current fitness pace is becomes faster.
The thing is that it's possible to keep doing faster and faster intervals week after week, due to trying harder and relying on anaerobic energy / higher lactate values, without racing faster in a goal distance (say 5k).
Let's say someone can run a 5k in 16:40 (3:20/k). He starts doing 5x1k each week, starting at 3:20/k. After a few months, he is doing them in 3:10/k, trying really really hard and racing the workout. He jumps into a 5k race, thinking he is ready for 3:10/k (15:50), but only manages another 16:40. Despite training at paces faster than his current 5k ability, he did not get faster in the race. He was training at too high lactate levels, and his body couldn't recover from the hard anaerobic intervals each week.
Tinman (and yes, many, many other coaches) would have him do 5k paced intervals at 3:20/k for a few months, then let him do another race. If he manages a 15:50, the intervals become 3:10/k - he has proven now that he has really improved, and is not just hammering the intervals harder. If he runs a 16:15, the intervals become 3:15/k.
You can see it time and time again in HS kids who run faster and faster each week in their intervals and then the race comes and they are very disappointed, finding out they didn't improve. Chances are, they trained at paces FASTER than their current ability too often, and turned into "workout heroes", instead of training at paces that are physiologically optimal for them based on their current fitness.
I was geared up for some throwbacks to posts like this one:
albanese wrote:
The problem is Tinman's entire philosphy has 98% of your training done at 10k pace or slower (for track runners). That can work to an extent, but eventually you will hit a HUGE plateau.
....and just an add there. Why running 10 k pace when there is absolutely no need for that pace
in training??
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
CaptainLife wrote:
What is Tinman’s argument against goal-pace training?
Tinman derives his paces/ideal training paces off CURRENT ability, not "dream ability"/goal ability. He thinks that to optimally train the body, you should prescribe paces and workloads that are ideal for the performance level a body is currently capable off.
Brogan Austin did 0 miles at goal MP, and became US marathon champ.
Tinman would never train someone and say: "What do you want to run a 5k in?" and derive his paces off that goal time. He would go and say "what did you recently race a 5k in?", THEN prescribe paces off that current level, and trust in the process that if everything works out well the next race will be faster.
The current paces in that example of someone training for a 5k include threshold pace, marathon pace, CV pace, 5k pace, 3k pace, mile pace, 800 pace, etc. But a workout at 5k pace would use 40s/200 for a 16:40 5k runner, instead of 36s/200 for a 16:40 5k runner with a goal pace of 15:00 5k.
This doesn't answer my question. OP said Tinman made some argument, grounded in physiology, against goal-race pace training. What you've described is Tinman (subjectively) preferring one method over the other, which is fine, but does not address the question.
And I'm not the first person on here to tell you your 16:40 runner hypothetical example is ridiculous. Let's use your example, but say this runner now wants to run around 16:20 instead (still kind of a big jump depending on the athlete, but not nearly as bad as your example). So they would go from running 1k reps from 3:20/km to 3:16/km. That's only 4 seconds. 4 seconds over a 3+ min interval is not going to make-or-break a runner. Training stress isn't binary. And I get the impression based on this post and another one you posted later is that anyone who goes from prescribing current-fitness to goal-fitness workouts magically becomes a idiot overnight.
Tinman has access to talented-enough runners but they do not have the right mindset to be great.
They are training at altitude, like Canova's runners but they are not doing what it takes. They run easy workouts and unsurprisingly are not running elite level times. Hunter is the most talented runner there and is not maximizing his ability. He's a 13:20s guy right now. His 3k is his best race so far. With Julian, Canova, Schumacher, or any number of others, he'd be low 13 already.
Brogan Austin, if he were training in Kenya, would be running 2:06-2:08, not 2:12. On Canova's principles, he'd be doing 5x5k workouts at 3-3:05/kilometer and the marathon time would drop a lot.
This thread should be renamed Tinman vs Strawman. I would guess Canova is not being represented properly.
...by the OP
donairs wrote:
This thread should be renamed Tinman vs Strawman. I would guess Canova is not being represented properly.
Exactly this.
As a guy who has put many dozens of hours into reading everything he's written, I feel like I have a pretty decent grasp on his philosophy and how it works.
Those saying Tinman works based on current fitness and Canova bases it on goal fitness are either misinformed, trolling, or willfully ignorant.
Early in training Canova uses the INTERNAL LOAD aka, perceived effort training to avoid the athlete going too fast or having to worry about hitting splits, etc. From there, he uses the athlete's current fitness to set training. Don't confuse this with training at goal race pace, which I feel some of you are doing.
If they figure the athlete can run a 2:15 (3:12/k) marathon currently, with a goal of 2:10 at the end of the cycle, the workouts will be based on that. There will be runs slower than this pace, and workout at this pace, and some faster than this pace. Let's say the classic Canova workout, 6-7 x 3000m at 100-103% of marathon pace. He will run them at 3:12 - 3:06/k.
What some are you are saying is that Canova will base the 100-103% on the pace of 2:10 (3:05/k), so the workout would be run at 3:05 - 2:59/k. He would also agree that would probably be overtraining.
And yeah they run workouts faster than race pace, but so does everyone. You all are getting caught up on black and white details that aren't really black and white.
Tinman athletes run workouts at 3k race pace - while that's technically probably a little too fast to be realistic "goal 5k pace", it ultimately serves the same purpose, which is to have a physiological effect on the body of improving economy, lactate buffering, etc, which will push the athletes 5k pace faster over time.