What does Tinman thinks about the Ingebrigtsens' training?

Do you really need Tinman to tell you that the Ingebritsen's training is good and works very well?

Just compare Gjert's credentials to Tinman's.

Nope. More interested in hearing why Tinman believes his CV-focused training is superior.

Guessing he’ll bring up the biomechanical benefits of running at CV. He’s a big believer in running fast enough to train the neuromuscular patterns called upon at race pace

parkerjohn wrote:

Guessing he’ll bring up the biomechanical benefits of running at CV. He’s a big believer in running fast enough to train the neuromuscular patterns called upon at race pace

Ingebrigtsens threshold pace is faster than tinman guys CV

parkerjohn wrote:

Guessing he’ll bring up the biomechanical benefits of running at CV. He’s a big believer in running fast enough to train the neuromuscular patterns called upon at race pace

He's also a big believer in misusing the word "velocity." Velocity is a vector. If you were to prescribe a critical velocity at which a runner should train, you would be prescribing both a pace and a direction. The term "critical velocity" implies that the training benefit of running north at 5 minute pace would differ from the training benefit of running south at 5 minute pace.

Elvin wrote:

parkerjohn wrote:

Guessing he’ll bring up the biomechanical benefits of running at CV. He’s a big believer in running fast enough to train the neuromuscular patterns called upon at race pace

He's also a big believer in misusing the word "velocity." Velocity is a vector. If you were to prescribe a critical velocity at which a runner should train, you would be prescribing both a pace and a direction. The term "critical velocity" implies that the training benefit of running north at 5 minute pace would differ from the training benefit of running south at 5 minute pace.

+1

That was way too good.

If Drew Huntar had been coached by Gjert Ingebrigtsen he had been a 3:30- 3:32 runner by now.

Tinman is just a joke.This CV crap is just embarrassingly.

American Pie wrote:

If Drew Huntar had been coached by Gjert Ingebrigtsen he had been a 3:30- 3:32 runner by now.

Tinman is just a joke.This CV crap is just embarrassingly.

I think the differences between the groups is more than just the philosophy. While I certainly think the Bakken/Ingebrigtsen way of building aerobic fitness is better than CV-training, the whole mentality seems to be different as well.

Gjert and the brothers are very particular about doing things correctly and from the Tinman Elite videos I've seen it just seems that things are a little looser. Maybe that's just the impression they wanna give off, but from what I've seen they don't think too much of running too fast or slow in training, while Gjert is very particular about it.

I think that kind of attention to detail is make or break when it comes too making it in the elite fields. I could be wrong but that seems to be the difference aside from training philosophy.

Tinman is what you'd get if you had a middle school gym teacher with no running experience read a few training books and coach a team. There is more "art" in coaching than there is science. Tinman is incapable of learning the art.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

Tinman is what you'd get if you had a middle school gym teacher with no running experience read a few training books and coach a team. There is more "art" in coaching than there is science. Tinman is incapable of learning the art.

That's a bit harsh. Gjert doesn't have a background in physiology or exercise science either. They have both shown a capacity to learn and figure out their own solutions in training. It could just be that Gjert had different influences than Tinman. We shouldn't forget that the double threshold system was popularized by Bakken, Norway's best long-distance runner on the men's side in decades. Gjert was introduced to that system by Bjarne Ustad Kristiansen(8:14 steepler) who trained with Bakken. So there is a sense of being in the right place at the right time as well. Of course Gjert developed it further.

Yes but relatively CV would be faster than the threshold. From what I remember Ingebrigtsen use 2.5 to 3.5 mmol pace (depending on whether it is the first or second workout of the day as well as volume and rest of the session) tinman CV is 5.5 mmol of lactate. So for Jakob, his threshold would be between 4:40 and 4:30 whereas his CV would be between 4:20 and 4:15. Ingebrigtsen training definitely makes up this slower pace by doing more 200-300m hill or track reps at 1500 effort.

You don't understand. Some of the best coaches out there have almost no grasp of the science but can put together good training programs that flow perfectly and peak at the right time while keeping athletes healthy...because they understand the nuances of being an athlete.

Just look at Rudisha's coach or Van Niekerk's coach. Tinman can't do that. Tinman is not in tune with his athletes. It doesn't matter if he knows the science better than anyone in the history of the world if he is unable to understand how is athletes are feeling.

Jgt11 wrote:

Yes but relatively CV would be faster than the threshold. From what I remember Ingebrigtsen use 2.5 to 3.5 mmol pace (depending on whether it is the first or second workout of the day as well as volume and rest of the session) tinman CV is 5.5 mmol of lactate. So for Jakob, his threshold would be between 4:40 and 4:30 whereas his CV would be between 4:20 and 4:15. Ingebrigtsen training definitely makes up this slower pace by doing more 200-300m hill or track reps at 1500 effort.

I would say Ingebrigtsen make up for the slower pace by doing like 2x the quantity. :) We are talking about very similiar training philosphies which are attacking the problem in just slightly different ways. I don't think the evidence is there to suggest that one way is better than the other.

I think there is. One coach is 3 for 3 in world class athletes and the other has 2 of around 10 guys he coaches closely that are remotely good.

I would agree with this. The ingebrigtsens are doing 5 sessions per week to Tinman's two (at least for tinman elite). Not to mention 90-120 miles compared to 70-85. Another big difference that I'm curious about is the combination of different energy systems. In base phase most of tinman's workouts will be CV/threshold and then faster stuff at the end. Many coaches such as Jonathan Marcus would say that the faster stuff should come first. The Ingebrigtsens meanwhile, have a separate 200 hills/300 track session that works at mile effort. This seems more beneficial to elite athletes because they need more stimulus to improve each area. But it seems that Tinman's workouts might be fine for the less trained athlete or the high school athlete (seems to be working for Rheinhardt Harrison).

xcvt wrote:

I would agree with this. The ingebrigtsens are doing 5 sessions per week to Tinman's two (at least for tinman elite). Not to mention 90-120 miles compared to 70-85. Another big difference that I'm curious about is the combination of different energy systems. In base phase most of tinman's workouts will be CV/threshold and then faster stuff at the end. Many coaches such as Jonathan Marcus would say that the faster stuff should come first. The Ingebrigtsens meanwhile, have a separate 200 hills/300 track session that works at mile effort. This seems more beneficial to elite athletes because they need more stimulus to improve each area. But it seems that Tinman's workouts might be fine for the less trained athlete or the high school athlete (seems to be working for Rheinhardt Harrison).

The fact that they run at 2.5-3.5 mmol instead of 5.5 allows them to do much more work while gaining the pretty much the same aerobic adaptations. The separation of workout paces is beneficial in base phase as it allows proper focus on different qualities. You ideally don't want to send mixed signals to your body because you don't have to. Competition is a long time away. In competition phase you want to blend these together to race your best.

The Tinman system is good for high school, masters, and sub elites with full time jobs. It’s moderate mileage with a moderate amount of higher end Zone 4.

In contrast world class runners need high mileage with a higher amount of Zone 4. That’s what the Norway boys are responding very well too.

If you are in your 20s and 30s and can focus full time on training and recovery then do the Ingebrigsten system. If not then the Tinman system makes sense.

Elvin wrote:

parkerjohn wrote:

Guessing he’ll bring up the biomechanical benefits of running at CV. He’s a big believer in running fast enough to train the neuromuscular patterns called upon at race pace

He's also a big believer in misusing the word "velocity." Velocity is a vector. If you were to prescribe a critical velocity at which a runner should train, you would be prescribing both a pace and a direction. The term "critical velocity" implies that the training benefit of running north at 5 minute pace would differ from the training benefit of running south at 5 minute pace.

I was turned off by this too. It’s hard to get behind his BS science when he gives the system a name that doesn’t even make sense.

Ultimately I think that running fans are interested in the fact that Gjert is actually doing things that are meaningfully different and taking chances. Tinman is little more than Daniels and the Daniels derivative programs, nothing original. CV wasn’t original. Everyone running Daniels ran at that pace when their I paced runs were feeling slow or their tempos were feeling fast. A Daniels 5x mile tempo off a minute rest is hardly different than CV. The Tinman tempo wasn’t original. It was a Daniels M paced run for a shorter duration. Hard reps after the tempo? How novel. Just because he renamed the paces doesn’t mean that they provide unique training adaptations.

I don’t mean to bash Tinman or the paces he prescribes. It’s a very good system for most school kids and club runners. You can definitely improve on it. It’s just been done before. He was lucky more than he was good and he owes Daniels a beer or two.

zinger wrote:

I think there is. One coach is 3 for 3 in world class athletes and the other has 2 of around 10 guys he coaches closely that are remotely good.

By this logic, neither coach has a WR. Why are we listening to either of them? If the coaching was decent, they both should hold all the WRs from 1500m-10k right?