not a jelly school teacher wrote:
Fred is just jelly. He's probably an old school running coach and can't admit Tinman's training is working.
Any kind of training would work with a genetically gifted human being.
As long as you alter the stimulus every so often.
fred wrote:
Runner's World:
"The summer before his freshman year, Hunter decided to go out for cross country. He guesses he ran three times a week that summer, probably 20 minutes at eight-minute pace each time. But that family talent showed: He ran 16:43 for 5K and 9:40 for the two-mile, playing basketball between seasons."
So he ran 3 @ 5:23 off of weeks that were
3 training days of 2.5 miles ( 7.5 miles jogging )
Then he played basketball and off that base ran 2 @ 4:50.
This is before any Tinman training.
Do you understand the difference between training before a season, and training during a season? He wasn't running 7.5 mpw when he ran 16:43. As mentioned, he ran 18:57 off 7.5 mpw. His training DURING the season was different.
Do you understand the concept of a base. Sullivan ran 100 mile weeks for a base to get to 3:31. And Sullivan was gifted.
The summer base was 7 mile weeks for Hunter, as in you run off your base from 2 to 6 months previously. Unless you are freaking gifted.
Hunter is super gifted.
Fred, if you're so knowledgeable, then how come you don't understand the concept of bio-mechanical efficiency? You even joke that there is no such thing.
You can do all the hard training you want, but if you are doing it wrong then you are just not going to maximize efficiency.
fred wrote:
Runner's World:
"The summer before his freshman year, Hunter decided to go out for cross country. He guesses he ran three times a week that summer, probably 20 minutes at eight-minute pace each time. But that family talent showed: He ran 16:43 for 5K and 9:40 for the two-mile, playing basketball between seasons."
So he ran 3 @ 5:23 off of weeks that were
3 training days of 2.5 miles ( 7.5 miles jogging )
Then he played basketball and off that base ran 2 @ 4:50.
This is before any Tinman training.
YES. How does that make all these guys feel that are out there doing "summers of Malmo" and they can't crack 17:00 feel?
Talent is real, talent exists.
Jon Orange wrote:
Fred, if you're so knowledgeable, then how come you don't understand the concept of bio-mechanical efficiency? You even joke that there is no such thing.
You can do all the hard training you want, but if you are doing it wrong then you are just not going to maximize efficiency.
Well Jonny, why don't you define bio-mechanical effiency, in neurochemical terms. What's happening at the motor endplate, and what's happening in the synaptic transmission in the nervous system between the brain and the muscle.
Put it in molecular terms.
Can't do it, can you Jonny?
jman1 wrote:
tasker wrote:yeah I know
ok no hills. 10k pace. I'll try not to be bored
When it was said earlier that 1km reps at 10k effort were nothing revolutionary and written into every runners schedule - then someone else said, "yea, but nobody ACTUALLY does it" - remember that? Here's your proof! There are so many people out there who are given the concept with no excuses to mess it up, but they still can't apply it correctly.
you are so right - OP here. I totally failed. I did the workout last night...I ran 8 x 1k too fast and incorporated hills.
but to be fair, I am a road racer and have to deal with hills in races....hunter is a track guy at this point and doesn't have to climb or descend. But I understand how I failed to do the workout right.
fred wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:Fred, if you're so knowledgeable, then how come you don't understand the concept of bio-mechanical efficiency? You even joke that there is no such thing.
You can do all the hard training you want, but if you are doing it wrong then you are just not going to maximize efficiency.
Well Jonny, why don't you define bio-mechanical effiency, in neurochemical terms. What's happening at the motor endplate, and what's happening in the synaptic transmission in the nervous system between the brain and the muscle.
Put it in molecular terms.
Can't do it, can you Jonny?
No. Why would I even attempt to answer the question. And why are you still trying to avoid the issue.
Bio mechanical efficiency in simple terms that even you can't deny is how much fuel you use for a given pace or effort.
Talent is a very vague term, biomechanical efficiency is not.
This interval pace is obviously pretty slow...Why would it be better to do these CV pace 1K repeats than to just do a 20 minute tempo at the same pace?
Gringer wrote:
This interval pace is obviously pretty slow...Why would it be better to do these CV pace 1K repeats than to just do a 20 minute tempo at the same pace?
Presumably because with repeats, you can accumulate more time at CV pace.
Jon Orange wrote:
fred wrote:Well Jonny, why don't you define bio-mechanical effiency, in neurochemical terms. What's happening at the motor endplate, and what's happening in the synaptic transmission in the nervous system between the brain and the muscle.
Put it in molecular terms.
Can't do it, can you Jonny?
No. Why would I even attempt to answer the question. And why are you still trying to avoid the issue.
Bio mechanical efficiency in simple terms that even you can't deny is how much fuel you use for a given pace or effort.
Talent is a very vague term, biomechanical efficiency is not.
Oh, so its fuel that you use. How does that relate to the nervous system? I'm pretty sure you used the words nervous system.
And how do they scientifically determine how much fuel you use. Do they do a biopsy on your liver?
Fill in the blanks Jonny.
From the sounds of it, biomechanical efficiency is referring to the mechanical losses in the body as a mechanical system. Nothing to do with nerves or enzymes or whatever.
Losses due to imperfect technique are real. It is one of the reasons people with the same aerobic capacity run different times for the marathon.
Practice makes you more efficient. Paula Radcliffe has spoken about this before.
Actually it's about the same amount of CV time. I'd rather run 6K at CV pace in a tempo than do 6-9K in 1K intervals at CV pace.
Deer Rojo, thanks for getting the inside scoop on Hunter's training. Lots of good information you have posted/published over the last week.
I am sure everyone who has posted on here was extremely interested in the training philosophy that he subscribed to through Tinman. If you have read his posts or other informaion about CV training (why would you do that!?!), you would see that CV workouts make up only a part of the training. It is not just running 1k repeats on 10k pace and you will be running huge PRs.. There are other key workouts that are much harder, however not all that information is out there about them.
Like any training there are ways to apply it and that is the art of coaching. To come on here after reading small parts about Hunter's training and be dismissive about it, or think, 'boy that's nothing new!' is a bit short sighted.
I think the thing people miss about Tom's training method is that you can maintain his type of training year round, tweaking the different elements based on where you are in the year competitively. You are never really far away from being race ready, and you are able to maintain consistent training instead of getting injured, sick, burned out due to too much hard training. CV is the hub around which all the training is based- it is the meat and potatoes of the training, and you find it in the plan almost year round. 1000 meter reps are rarely, if ever, a stand alone workout. They are almost always followed with shorter repeats at faster speeds, whether hill reps, strides, 200's or breakdowns, depending where you are in the training plan, BUT NOT IN HUGE QUANTITIES. There are no "traditional" workouts like 12x 400 at mile pace with 1-2 minute rest. I would not characterize any of the workouts as VERY hard. Never are athletes lying on the ground after the workout or even close to that, if they run the correct paces.
fred wrote:
Jon Orange wrote:No. Why would I even attempt to answer the question. And why are you still trying to avoid the issue.
Bio mechanical efficiency in simple terms that even you can't deny is how much fuel you use for a given pace or effort.
Talent is a very vague term, biomechanical efficiency is not.
Oh, so its fuel that you use. How does that relate to the nervous system? I'm pretty sure you used the words nervous system.
And how do they scientifically determine how much fuel you use. Do they do a biopsy on your liver?
Fill in the blanks Jonny.
Yes, fuel, that's the word. You might have heard of such things as glycogen, glucose, lactate, ATP, oxygen? Stuff like that, we call them fuel, or fuels which is the plural of fuel.
The brain uses them too, not just the muscles, and the brain controls the nervous system, which controls fuel usage and running technique. This can be measured using a running treadmill measuring speed and gas analysis from our breathing.
For someone who claims to be a better coach that tinman, you are remarkably lacking in knowledge of exercise physiology.
VA track fan 1234 wrote:
I think the thing people miss about Tom's training method is that you can maintain his type of training year round, tweaking the different elements based on where you are in the year competitively. You are never really far away from being race ready, and you are able to maintain consistent training instead of getting injured, sick, burned out due to too much hard training. CV is the hub around which all the training is based- it is the meat and potatoes of the training, and you find it in the plan almost year round. 1000 meter reps are rarely, if ever, a stand alone workout. They are almost always followed with shorter repeats at faster speeds, whether hill reps, strides, 200's or breakdowns, depending where you are in the training plan, BUT NOT IN HUGE QUANTITIES. There are no "traditional" workouts like 12x 400 at mile pace with 1-2 minute rest. I would not characterize any of the workouts as VERY hard. Never are athletes lying on the ground after the workout or even close to that, if they run the correct paces.
That sound like my training, but in a formulated way. Mine is all done by feel with no pre-planning.
One question I have; is there any emphasis on technique training as there was in the Lydiard system?
Gringer wrote:
This interval pace is obviously pretty slow...Why would it be better to do these CV pace 1K repeats than to just do a 20 minute tempo at the same pace?
Because that is too hard. If you want to overtrain, then follow the Daniels program.
Metric Miler wrote:
From the sounds of it, biomechanical efficiency is referring to the mechanical losses in the body as a mechanical system. Nothing to do with nerves or enzymes or whatever.
Losses due to imperfect technique are real. It is one of the reasons people with the same aerobic capacity run different times for the marathon.
Practice makes you more efficient. Paula Radcliffe has spoken about this before.
That has everything to do with the nervous system. That is my point, my entire ethos. That is what makes you a super athlete like Drew Hunter, or a no-hoper like fred. Good efficient training versus stoopid dumb workin my a$$ off an gettin nowhere training.
I think you are changing the point you are making. People can be bio-mechanically different due to bone and muscle structure. Range of movement at a joint is another completely mechanical factor.
Nobody can tell me that Tinman's training is creating more efficient movement patterns in Drew's nervous system. That would be grossly overstating the depth to which Tinman has been working on.
Pracricing relaxed running is common sense and pretty much all athletes do some relaxed pace stuff, be it an easy run or strides on the track.
There is nothing wrong with working hard either.