Get the inside scoop on Drew Hunter's training - LetsRun's feature on Tom "Tinman" Schwartz

I tried using "Tinman's Calculator" and it gave me completely different results based on the various pr's I entered. When i put in my 1600 time it said I should be running my moderate runs at the same pace it said my tempo was based on my 5k. My 1600m might be a bit better than my 5k but jesus not that much better.

Truth teller!! wrote:

Running repeats at or slightly slower that 10k pace with a shortish jog rest is nothing new. I have a running training book written by Anders Gärderud in the 1980s where he advocates just that, so "tinman" didn´t invent that - he just gave it a new name.

Except that nobody does it. High schools don't. Colleges don't. Your running group doesn't. I don't go to my running group's weekly track workouts because they are killing themselves with 5K pace mile repeats.

I agree with Tinman that there are lots of runners with Drew Hunter's talent, I think he probably underestimates the number by a long way. But they have to be discovered and coached properly, an extremely rare combination of events. I agree with Tinman that Drew Hunter is lucky to have such good support and that it is extremely important.

"You train properly and see where that takes you, you don't force it" Spot on, a good philosophy.

However, I must disagree with some other points, whether it is your misinterpretation or not is not clear?

11a fibers use glycogen and some blood glucose and oxygen, because glycogen and glucose have to be both oxidized and they also produce an essential amount of ATP anaerobically.

Pure 11b fibers are not found in a distance runner like Drew Hunter only in pure sprinters.

They can't be converted to type 11a, but the myosin expression in type 11a can change making them less powerful, but more resistant to fatigue.

1000s a little faster than 10k pace? It's just so freakin' slow...

the idea of workouts not being a big deal is appealing, but jeez that is easy.

I think Tinman's belief is that it's better to be slightly undertrained than any type of overtrained?

He said he doesn't believe in "killer workouts" Whatever that means? It's open to interpretation.

I believe in occasionally doing some very fast but efficient workouts because you will recover quickly and you won't be either overtrained or undertrained.

Runninnn wrote:

Can someone explain what 90 percent of VO2 max means? What pace is that and how do you figure that out. Sorry im a noob.

Follow the link to Tinman's site and he has a calculator that will give you your training paces for various distances.

Other similar calculators can be found at Mcmillanrunning.com . Someone built an excellent spreadsheet based on Daniels paces that will do the same thing but it is harder to find online.

Tinman wrote:

I was coached by Tinman blah blah

All these posts saying they were coached by Tinman, are him posting about himself, which he has a history of doing.

This so called scientific 90 percent of 30, or 33, or 45, or 44 minutes or whatever as being some magic secret is total rubbish and outs the tinman as a charlatan.

You could take 90 percent of 2 minutes, 90 percent of 2 hours, 90 percent of a day and make any pace that you want to make, and really is that so scientific???

No, it is rubbish. Pure and simple total rubbish.

Mumbo Jumbo Rubbish wrote:

This so called scientific 90 percent of 30, or 33, or 45, or 44 minutes or whatever as being some magic secret is total rubbish and outs the tinman as a charlatan.

You could take 90 percent of 2 minutes, 90 percent of 2 hours, 90 percent of a day and make any pace that you want to make, and really is that so scientific???

No, it is rubbish. Pure and simple total rubbish.

So you are saying if you were Drew Hunter's coach, he would have run 7:48?

Replace Hunter with the scrubs on the team training EXACTLY the same way and things suddenly look ho hum.

Jon Orange wrote:

I think Tinman's belief is that it's better to be slightly undertrained than any type of overtrained?

He said he doesn't believe in "killer workouts" Whatever that means? It's open to interpretation.

I believe in occasionally doing some very fast but efficient workouts because you will recover quickly and you won't be either overtrained or undertrained.

I think you are right. He uses this scientific theory to justify it, but really it is common sense.

You must increase training load in order to induce physiological adaptations (he has been raising Drew's mileage and I'm sure training pace for intervals). However you cannot do this too quickly, or add too much intensity or volume in order to avoid over training. These are based on very basic training principles. Hard track workouts can also curtail improvement in a season by causing an early peak.

The real coaching comes when a young athlete finishes their natural improvement around age 25 (sometimes earlier if trained too hard) and the coach cannot increase mileage any further. Then comes the question, how do you induce training adaptations without causing injury or over training? That is coaching, how Salazar has managed with Rupp and Farah. Or Peter Coe. Or Jama Aden. Or Brother Colm. Young athletes improve by themselves.

Tinman may be a fantastic coach, but Drew's early success is not confirmation of this yet. By simply not training the boy too hard he can bring out his natural ability, without the need for any calculated training paces.

talent makes a program wrote:

Replace Hunter with the scrubs on the team training EXACTLY the same way and things suddenly look ho hum.

Ho hum from elite national perspective, yes. Because the scrubs aren't gifted with the ability to be elite national. The scrubs might hit some new PRs that they would not otherwise doing the conventional frequent very high intensity workouts.

For sure, he's got a kid with the gift. If the kid gets even faster and chronic injury free, then it's hard to argue coaching did not play a role. How much of a role can be argued forever with no right answers.

I said it in another thread- even Tinman agrees that Hunter has a low ceiling. The kid has a shuffle, not a traditionally great fluid stride, but it's effective for him.

"John replied along the lines he was posting on amessageboard, not writing a scientific paper. Many of the things he used are scientific facts and many of his beliefs he figured out from basically trying every training program out there. I've always said the thing about JK is how well he knows his body. He could run 14 workouts, 150 miles a week and then somehow realize it was the snickers bar on thursday that was the key (if that was the case, which it's not."

Did John run 150 mile weeks? 150 mile weeks plus speedwork? Low fast mileage weeks after coming off of 150 mile weeks? Is he predominantly Slow Twitch, Fast Twitch, Fast Twitch taking on slow properties.

He got Hyde to a 4 minute mile with mileage and high end aerobic. Did he do that to his own body?

The poster I replied to asked "to see some peer-reviewed articles that actually demonstrate that running at certain speeds can change type IIb fibers to type IIa ones" and I gave him a study that showed a complete reduction of IIb with an increase in I and IIa - didn't specify the CV pace. That being said, I did read Tinman's comment and roughly agreed in my head but would have liked a reference. I roughly agreed in my head because I have seen strong indirect evidence with, strangely enough, 90% VO2max.

hold the phone wrote:

kanny wrote:

There is sooo much out there on this - it'd be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Here's one study that shows evidence of Type II converting to Type I with marathon training (if you can even call it that). Note that the percentage of Type IIa actually increased.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/jap/101/3/721.full.pdf

Relevant image:

http://d13geadg2uyg93.cloudfront.net/content/jap/101/3/721/F1.large.jpg

The claim was that running at "critical velocity" converts muscle fibers more efficiently than running at other paces. The study you cited just involved running, with no particular instruction (or monitoring) of pace. The claims attributed to Tinman in the article, about how he "discovered" that running at a certain pace is the best way to convert fibers, have no basis in any literature I've seen.

rojo, it's cite, not site.

Your welcome

kWo wrote:

I said it in another thread- even Tinman agrees that Hunter has a low ceiling. The kid has a shuffle, not a traditionally great fluid stride, but it's effective for him.

How is this any different from "but did he look relaxed?" The kid is 18, and his form isn't totally developed. It's efficient for him and it's enough to get him to incredibly fast speeds, and he still has a good kick. When he's kicking, interestingly enough, his knees go higher. He's had no injuries. Whatever gets the job done.

Rojo, does JK still live in DFW or do any coaching?

tell the twooth! wrote:

Truth teller!! wrote:

Running repeats at or slightly slower that 10k pace with a shortish jog rest is nothing new. I have a running training book written by Anders Gärderud in the 1980s where he advocates just that, so "tinman" didn´t invent that - he just gave it a new name.

Except that nobody does it. High schools don't. Colleges don't. Your running group doesn't. I don't go to my running group's weekly track workouts because they are killing themselves with 5K pace mile repeats.

Nobody runs 10k pace? Are you actually this stupid?