Tinman's "diminishing returns" philosophy about training is a great way to justify laziness

After reading this topic, it's obvious that Fact Checker has the best grasp of the scientific principles of training in this thread. TinMan is a dunce.

But did the rats have a background in cardio training, or were they Cross Fit gym rats? Or skate rats? Makes a difference.

I'd vote for 800 dude as having best grasp of scientific principles, in that 800 brought up question of validity of vo2 max model of training. Just because an exercise physio can measure some body response does not make it all important.

"Increasing" and "diminishing returns" are not contradi ctory

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

Can you point to any studies that back this up? Again the ones I have seen suggest the 20 mins is better than 10 and 30 mins is better than 20 when you look at the aerobic adaptations after 6-8 weeks of training. Now obviously there are recovery limits. It doesn't matter if running 60 mins would maximize adaptations if there is no way to do it. There are some rat studies where they can do crazy volumes per week of vo2max work and the adapations just keep increasing as the volume goes up. I have a feeling humans would get similar results but nobody has found a way. to do 2 hours of vo2max training per week and without breaking down.

Nope. Not sure if there are any. This is drawn from what we know about how exercise triggers genetic pathways and from the common experience of coaches and athletes. Tinman may be the coach who talks the most about his "keep the ball rolling" theory, but it's basically what everyone has been doing for the past 10-15 years. Most pros are able to keep in very good shape all year by doing fairly easy workouts. Then it only takes about 6 weeks, and maybe 3 monster workouts, to get into peak shape.

Anyway, I'm not sure that anything you're saying contradicts what I was saying. I don't think anyone here is disputing that more stimulus = more adaptation (usually). The question is diminishing returns. In other words, is 30 minutes going to produce 50% more adaptation than 20 minutes? It's very difficult to study that question in a way that is directly meaningful to training because it is highly dependent on the individual. A well trained individual might not get ANY adaptation from 20 minutes at VO2max pace, in which case 30 could be way, way better. Conversely, it's possible that a poorly trained individual might not get ANY additional adaptation from 30 vs. 20 because 20 was already a massive stimulus vs. their baseline.

I think the point that he’s trying to make is that more intervals does not necessarily equate to more benefit. There’s a quote in Jack Daniel’s Running formula that’s something along the lines of “the goal of training is to get the most benefit out of the least amount of work rather than the most benefit out of the most amount of work”. Might have misquoted but you get the idea. For example, if a high school kid really busted their butt they could probably do 12x400 at their 1600m race pace if they took long enough rest, now we all know that’s a stupid hero workout, they could do 8x400 at their 1600m race pace and get just as good of a training affect and recover faster. What Tinman suggests is taking that one step further and maybe cutting down that volume to 5x400 with a few CV reps before the 400s and or some 200/150s after. Nothing about that involves being lazy he just simply suggests adding more variety to workouts. Although Tinman may get some hate for acting like the next great running guru, he does have some interesting ideas which he makes valid arguments for.

Yikes! 3 pages of this stuff thus far - - -

Words are cool and all, but they don't really mean much.

If you disagree with someone's training plan the great thing about our sport is everyone has the means to disprove it - - -

* find a group of young unproven guys/gals (don't cherry-pick the elite)

* convince them to follow your plan

* don't stray from your principles

* keep away from unpure things (drugs etc...)

* kick everyone in the tail and then you can just sit there a smile.

-Adam Kedge, Albuquerque

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

1-2 reps per workout over a. year is probably the difference between 13:15 and 13:10. Depending on what your big picture is, that could. be a pretty meaningful difference. Now those extra 1-2 reps could also turn you into a 14:30 runner if they get you injured.

That’s a fair point. I should have emphasized one rep in *one* workout (realizing that type doesn’t convey emphasis).

Tinman said in the video (loose quote) if 5 is enough for *that individual* - not 5 is a enough for every individual. It’s not that you do one fewer in today’s workout and continue that forever - you build up.

To JS - we’re all (including Tinman) saying the same thing, which was the point of my hyperbole. You don’t get increasing benefit forever. Wherever the individual hits that tipping point they need to stop.

Where we disagree, and it’s perfectly fine to disagree since we’ll each have to live with the consequences of our training choices, is when it comes to what you do after you get the benefit out of one part of the training for that day. Tinman says throw in another pace (or two) to get incremental benefit from the day. JS says (if I understand him) nah max it out to get maximal gain that day. I lean toward Tinman because I’ve done both and his way kept me from plateauing and kept me from being perpetually injured.

I'm always amazed when reading posts that OVER analyze training. As I read through the various posts trying to distinguish the benefits and shortfalls between 5 x 800 and 8 x 800 repeats, there isn't one post (that I saw) that mentions mental fatigue and or "Off Days". This leads me to believe that most if not 99% of the people posting on this subject are not experienced and or knowledgable to fully understand the concept of world-class training. That being said, I agree with Mr. Tinman on this concept. Simply said, you go to the track with the intent of running 8 x 800m at a prescribed pace. You start your workout and hit the targeted splits for 4-5 of them and then start to fall off on 5 or 6. Nothing drastic but you're struggling. At this point, you can either muscle through and run whatever you can and finish the workout feeling tired and somewhat discouraged. You cool down and go home not feeling great about the workout. Physically you're fine, nothing unusual just feeling flat and fatigued. Instead of fighting through the remainder of the workout of which you've mentally and physically have "Checked Out" you adjust the workout to finish off on a positive note. The key factor is that you substitute the negative with a positive. By changing the dynamic of the session with a few 150's, 200's or 400's with no expectation of times only effort you've eliminated the negative aspect of the workout and finish on a positive note. My point is that when training at the world-class level there will be "Off Days" no matter what the training plan says. This is where the athlete and coach relationship is crucial. Keeping mentally fresh and positive is paramount. Once an athlete realizes you need "Bad Days" to have "Good Days' and can adjust appropriately during a training session and turn a negative into a positive they've now prepared themselves to do the same during a race. Not all races go as planned (very few do) and to identify this is what separates great runners from average runners.

There are some great ideas and observations on this thread that are not to be discounted but at the end of the day, training and racing are not about what is written in a log. As one post stated "Tiz not rocket science", don't overthink it and just RUN. Quoting a line from my favorite Western movie when two men are facing off in a dual and one of the men is talking on and on about how he is going to kill the other, the other man doesn't say a word and just shoots and kills the man and says "Don't talk....just shoot".

"Go Run One".

To avoid garbage physiology talk, use race pace instead of terminology like threshold, VO2 max, vVO2 max, etc.

These are different workouts, then, but clear in what they are:

5x800@3k (200j)

5x800@5k (200j)

The college athletes typically would do 8x800 and they derive a lot of benefit from that. The problem really is just that if you want to make big improvements from year to year, you have to look at the major factors that hinder development in younger runners. The biggest factors in hindering development are injuries, by far. Injuries are extremely common at the college level and they result in a de facto 20-30% roster cut for most college xc teams. So, for them, it would absolutely make sense to prioritize health even if that meant a lower ceiling for the athletes. The speed work at the end of these 5x800 workouts is intended to provide the additional stimulus to make up for the lack of strength work here. Moreover, if he is calling V02 max 6-7 minute pace, then he's essentially asking his athletes to do 5x800@3k+, then 4-6x200@800 pace, which is going to do comparable work or better for his athletes, especially in a track context where that speed development and that quicker pace are more important. Then, if athletes on such programs tend to make it season to season with fewer injuries than other programs, they would be more consistent and better in most cases.

Dr Daniel's 11-12 min VO2MAX values came from calculations from Jimmy Gilbert, a mathematician. He calculated exactly 11:03 minutes as duration minimum velocity at VO2MAX can be held.

New research showed that minimum velocity at VO2MAX can only be held for 4-8 minutes (field athletes more like 4-5 minutes, top high-end endurance athletes 7-8 minutes).

Any lab test that has been done shows this duration in runners, even the best elites in the world can't sustain 100% of their VO2MAX for more than 7-8 minutes.

What do you rather trust, a mathematic formula that tells you runners can run 11 minutes at VO2MAX, or tests of hundreds/thousands runners in labs that showed 5-8 minutes? I'd go with the second.

But why concern yourself with how long someone can hold minimum velocity at 100% VO2MAX? What matters is how to design workouts, and both Daniel's and Tinman have good VO2MAX workouts (5-6x1k @I-pace or 95% VO2MAX in Daniel's or 4-6x800 @100% VO2MAX, or 400s/600s @100% VO2MAX with short rest in Tinman).

There needs to be less "research says" and more linking research.

It can be hard to find old research but we're losing a lot in the speculation/ possible misinterpretation

Daniels have a big take over compared to Tinman in the fact that there seem to be no difference in the development of maxVO2 pace if the runner does 3k pace or 5 k pace. 3 k pace is harder on the body compared to 5 k pace , so why do 3 k pace instead of 5 k pace when it`s not necessary and just increase injury risk?? Doing 5 k pace week after week and less injury risk and quite easy being able to do the amount of reps necessary to get enough stimuli for the purpose of the workout is really superior to the 3k pace option. This is the real true smart way of "Keeping the ball rolling" ))

seattle prattle wrote:

Intervals are a quality workout, so the point is to do them when you are fresh, and they are less effective when you aren't, so you might as well skip the last few if you can't do them in the zone where you will benefit. There are some workouts that are geared to quantity, but that isn't among them.

To use and an analogy, let's say you turn on a quality news show like NPR News Hour, but you are getting tired after a half hour. So you might as well turn it off then becuase intelligent (quality) news reporting requires your attention. If, on the other hand, it was some garbage like Alex Jones Infowars, well go ahead and listen to it all day long because you don't need a brain to listen to that nonsense.

Hang in there buddy, and don't sell yourself short!

Every thread I visit this dude now has to pollute it with politics.

BUTTHOLE SURFER wrote:

That being said, I agree with Mr. Tinman on this concept. Simply said, you go to the track with the intent of running 8 x 800m at a prescribed pace. You start your workout and hit the targeted splits for 4-5 of them and then start to fall off on 5 or 6. Nothing drastic but you're struggling. At this point, you can either muscle through and run whatever you can and finish the workout feeling tired and somewhat discouraged. You cool down and go home not feeling great about the workout. Physically you're fine, nothing unusual just feeling flat and fatigued. Instead of fighting through the remainder of the workout of which you've mentally and physically have "Checked Out" you adjust the workout to finish off on a positive note.

That is not what Tinman is talking about at all. He is not talking about packing it in when a workout is going poorly and changing it on the fly. He is suggesting this workout from the start.

Jan Stensson , Coach JS wrote:

Daniels have a big take over compared to Tinman in the fact that there seem to be no difference in the development of maxVO2 pace if the runner does 3k pace or 5 k pace. 3 k pace is harder on the body compared to 5 k pace , so why do 3 k pace instead of 5 k pace when it`s not necessary and just increase injury risk?? Doing 5 k pace week after week and less injury risk and quite easy being able to do the amount of reps necessary to get enough stimuli for the purpose of the workout is really superior to the 3k pace option. This is the real true smart way of "Keeping the ball rolling" ))

Tinman himself posted research in his videos saying that for improving performance in distance races (3k-marathon), training at 95% VO2MAX (which is Daniel's I-pace or ~5k pace for fit runners) is just as effective as training at 100% VO2MAX. Only for the mile and faster races training at 100% of VO2MAX has shown to be necessary.

Yet, Tinman seems to use 3k pace or 100% VO2MAX in his athletes more than 5k pace. I'm not sure why, but one reason I can imagine is the additional leg strength that's developed when running at a faster pace. Aerobic adaptions are just one part of training, maybe 3k pace doesn't do anything more aerobically or to develop VO2MAX further than 5k pace but it certainly builds more muscular strength.

Also, Tinman uses VO2MAX workouts sparingly - around once every 2 weeks, maybe 3 weeks for runners who are not as fit. So he can make them a bit tougher, since he follows them up with plenty of recovery. Obviously hard, voluminous 3k workouts week after week would not work, that's gonna break anyone down. But even with 5k pace I can see it be dangerous, especially if it's longer reps like Daniel's suggests (~1k).

Well....if so, when it comes to maxVO2 intervals , Tinman speaks against what he does practical.....

When it comes to race the 800/ 1500/ mile / 3 k it`s still perfect to use 5k pace for the maxVO2 intervals . But here comes the big difference when it comes to run fast at the shorter distances, then the runner needs to add race pace repetitions and faster paces and there is no need for 3 k pace. The same way you can compare Tinman`s so called CV- pace ( roughly 10 k pace ) to Daniels LT-pace and find the CV-pace to be superflous... ))

Daniels don`t suggest maxVO2 intervals every week so in his case the 1k reps don`t make any harm. ))

Is there a coach that have find out a perfect solution on this matter that the maxVO2 intervals just have to be at 5 k race pace and the length of the reps should not be too taxing?Of course!

It`s me! )) .....the wizard.....using mostly 400s when it comes to maxVO2 intervals . This way the runner can do them every week and reduce injury risk and overdoing , and still develop the maxVO2 pace capacity.

I think he means vV02 pace, not V02 pace...

There is zero data that suggests running at 3k or 5k pace causes injuries. There is, however, data that suggests THRESHOLD pace has the highest likelihood of injuries.