What does Tinman thinks about the Ingebrigtsens' training?

this but more wrote:. He was lucky more than he was good and he owes Daniels a beer or two.

+100000

If Tinman weren't flirting with Drew Hunter's mom at the track one day, he would be a nobody. He was lucky to get to work with Drew. He's coached hundreds of athletes since Drew and none have come anywhere close to that level of success. He gets the pick of the best and most motivated athletes in the nation, too.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

this but more wrote:. He was lucky more than he was good and he owes Daniels a beer or two.

+100000

If Tinman weren't flirting with Drew Hunter's mom at the track one day, he would be a nobody. He was lucky to get to work with Drew. He's coached hundreds of athletes since Drew and none have come anywhere close to that level of success. He gets the pick of the best and most motivated athletes in the nation, too.

Reinhardt Harrison and Aidan Puffer have come close (or exceeded) Drew Hunters success as sophomores.

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.

Maybe you don't understand the word velocity yourself?

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

+100000

If Tinman weren't flirting with Drew Hunter's mom at the track one day, he would be a nobody. He was lucky to get to work with Drew. He's coached hundreds of athletes since Drew and none have come anywhere close to that level of success. He gets the pick of the best and most motivated athletes in the nation, too.

Reinhardt Harrison and Aidan Puffer have come close (or exceeded) Drew Hunters success as sophomores.

I don't know whether Tinman is a "perfect coach" but he must be at least a pretty solid coach to have coached the people he has. Once someone has improved to running at a high level, it becomes more and more difficult to make those small improvements but at the same time it becomes relatively easy to screw things up.

I have seen self proclaimed "expert coaches" take on guys who were running low 3-40s for 1500m to having problems running under 4 mins within a year or two of their garbage training methods - and I honestly think the same would happen even with a top notch runner such as Hunter. These "expert coaches" are much more headstrong than someone like Tinman and they will never acknowledge that their training methods are just pure garbage - it will always be the athlete's previous training, the athletes themselves, or some other factor to blame. And so the process continues for years and years and literally 100s of athletes will either decline markedly in their performance or fall well short of any potential they had. I really don't think that Tinman falls into that category of coach which is sadly not uncommon among the running community.

my 3 cents wrote:

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.

100% agree with this. Tinman is really good for people who have other things in life they want to work on. Running 60 minutes most days plus 90-120 for the long run and then having some mixed paces in workouts is efficient

Oh you fickle fanboys wrote:

Elvin wrote:

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.

Maybe you don't understand the word velocity yourself?

LOL for real, buncha science nerds here without the social awareness to know that they are embarrassing themselves. These guys and the grammar nazis here are competing for most out of touch rejects on this board. Pull the lightsabers out of your butts and breathe, dudettes

What is important to remember is that any threshold training (slightly above or at) can be done in many different ways and not just continous runs. this makes it possible to train faster speeds, but still around the threshold. This can activate more faster muscle fibres, increase running economy above threshold pace, etc, etc. I do believe Ingebrigtsens are using intervalls extensively. Then their hill workout is power, more anaerobic, more speed and develops that side.

No. That’s your logic. One coach has clearly better runners than the others. Who would you listen to if you had a choice? I know who I’d pick

u maddd wrote:

Oh you fickle fanboys wrote:

Maybe you don't understand the word velocity yourself?

LOL for real, buncha science nerds here without the social awareness to know that they are embarrassing themselves. These guys and the grammar nazis here are competing for most out of touch rejects on this board. Pull the lightsabers out of your butts and breathe, dudettes

The best part is that the defintion of velocity is just wrong. From webster

1a: quickness of motion

It is only in niche usage (i.e. physics) were velocity gets made into a vector. But lets say that you do want to call a velocity a vector. Does anyone really not know what the training direction is? Does anyone really think that anyone is suggesting running backwards?

Don't really know

The ingebrigtsen training is more diverse than some of you realize. It isn't just threshold of 2.5 - 3.5 mmol and hills. Using tinman

Double Session 1:

AM 5x6 min @ Tempo (Marathon ish) w/ 60 sec rest

PM 10x1000 @ Threshold (60 min race pace) w/ 60 sec rest

Double Session 2:

AM 5x6 min @ Tempo (Marathon ish) w/ 60 sec rest

PM 25x400 @ 5k w/ 30 sec rest

That works a wide range of paces when you also give them a day of hills. The reason this works is because, compared to their 1500 PRs, they aren't speedsters. Yes, their 49.x capabilities are good, but compared to someone like Lewandowski, that isn't much. They thrive off so much Aerobic work because if they did a ton of crazy mile pace work, they'd burnout. That's probably why hills work so well too, they're more of an aerobic workout than a track workout with long rest. They're HR definitely gets high, but I doubt they're redlining for 20+ reps with a minute rest. Their training is really smart and I'm sure Tinman would agree, if you care about that.

Ignore the "using tinman" was gonna go off on a tangent and decided not to.

another mistake, Monday PM should be at 10k, not threshold

Where is your source for the Ingrebrigsten training?

regenz wrote:

yo whatevs wrote:

another mistake, Monday PM should be at 10k, not threshold

Where is your source for the Ingrebrigsten training?

It is well documented if you know where to look. Although I do believe the poster is a little bit off. Just a little. I believe the 1000s are closer to real 1 hour race pace rather than 10k pace, and the 400s tend be slightly slower, like 8k-10k pace for them, rather than at 5k pace. And yes, the hills really aren't that fast (for them), but more about gaining strength on the hills. And yes, the AM sessions on the double workouts days are slower than most would think, but in combination with the PM session, you get 50-60 minutes of higher quality running in one day.

Even Mike Smith (whom I suspect talked with Gjert during one of their Flagstaff camps) has adopted a double threshold structure for his NAU men who were running really well this past indoor season.

That’s actually pretty interesting. Similar to Canova’s special & specific blocks in some ways. I’m curious about the ideology between the double sessions.

I would assume that these guys are such highly trained athletes that they need a lot of stimulus in a short period of time. So for less trained athletes it doesn’t really make as much sense. But then it doesn’t really make sense for NAU to be doing it, although they’re great athletes, they aren’t really at that level yet. But they are a high volume program.

Do you have any more details Han? Working on a new training log?

zinger wrote:

That’s actually pretty interesting. Similar to Canova’s special & specific blocks in some ways. I’m curious about the ideology between the double sessions.

I would assume that these guys are such highly trained athletes that they need a lot of stimulus in a short period of time. So for less trained athletes it doesn’t really make as much sense. But then it doesn’t really make sense for NAU to be doing it, although they’re great athletes, they aren’t really at that level yet. But they are a high volume program.

Do you have any more details Han? Working on a new training log?

Sorry, should have been a little more specific. NAU has maintained their twice a week workout schedule, but for example, a tuesday may look like: AM: 4x1600 threshold w/2 min rest // PM: 8x800 threshold w/1 min rest. And then friday, a single workout. So they aren't doing 2-3 days a week of double workouts. I'd argue that some of those guys were definitely at a near elite level. Tyler day 13:16 indoors, several guys in the 7:43-45 range for 3k, etc.

And yeah, similar theory to the Canova special block, but sort of a different goal outcome. Canova would look as that day as a really hard day of training mixing strength work and race pace or goal race pace reps, also requiring 3-4 days before and after being very easy. Where Gjert would want them to be able to stay under control enough to come back every other day and make it repeatable week after week.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

+100000

If Tinman weren't flirting with Drew Hunter's mom at the track one day, he would be a nobody. He was lucky to get to work with Drew. He's coached hundreds of athletes since Drew and none have come anywhere close to that level of success. He gets the pick of the best and most motivated athletes in the nation, too.

Reinhardt Harrison and Aidan Puffer have come close (or exceeded) Drew Hunters success as sophomores.

They were age group superstars before they even started working with Tinman. They still have a long way to go to meet Drew Hunter's level. Drew Hunter was playing other sports in his childhood while Puffer and Harrison were focusing on running from an extremely young age. Sophomore year was Drew Hunter's first time running year round.

Thanks for the information Han.

I think the classification of CV, threshold, MP etc is problematic when it comes to discussing different types of training. There are 2 ways people seem to think about it:

1. Pace alone. Thinking this way, you would think that CV is at 5.5 mmol Lactate (or whatever), and is zone 4, while "threshold" might be 4 mmol and be at the border of zone 3/4, and marathon pace might be a lower lactate level. So coaches using this thought process would consider each different pace a different type of workout. This seems to be how the exercise physiology world thinks about it when they try to classify workouts in different "zones".

2. Pace and rest together, making lactate more of a measure of stress/intensity. This seems to be the way Norwegians approach it - both Gjert and their world class triathletes coached by Arild Tveiten. With this approach, they use lactate as a measure of overall systemic load, taking into account the fact that the interspersed rest intervals will lead to a lower lactate than a continuous run at a given pace. Thus, they can run close to 5k pace for short intervals and call it "threshold". I think Gjert would call Tinman's CV workouts "threshold". And they know that if the lactate stays low (< 3.5 for example), they will be able to recover and do it again the next session.

Anyway, I think the different ways of thinking about Lactate Threshold lead to people arguing with each other, when in fact they are talking about pretty much the same thing