What does Tinman thinks about the Ingebrigtsens' training?

I too should have been more specific. The goals are certainly different. Still very interesting that they use the double threshold model. I remember watching some workout Wednesday of a woman Mike Smith coached (can’t recall her name) that did something like 6x1600 @threshold in the morning and 4x1600 @threshold in the afternoon

I was actually thinking about incorporating a session like this sometime in the future. Pretty cool stuff

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

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.

The Ingebrigtsen were also age group stars from pretty young ages. A coach is only as good as the talent they get to train. What nobody can tell you is what an athlete would do in a different system. If Drew and Jacob switched coaches and that life time of training, we have no idea what either of their PRs would be. I would never argue that Bob Timmons (or Scott Raczko for that matter) are the greatest coaches in the world even if they got great results...

The woman was Rachel Schneider.

There are a lot of people that really support Tinman to no end, and there are probably a lot more people on here that really do not like him, but I think the training is really actually very solid.

What the haters really can never admit, even though it is probably true, is that if Tom had the disposition and humility of say a Mike Smith with the same results, he would be viewed very, very differently.

People for good reason have a hard time separating Tom's training from his demeanor, but it's actually very balanced and does a great job developing a large array of runners.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

u maddd wrote:

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?

The Webster definition is incorrect.

Yeah I think that’s a pretty fair assessment. I think a big part of it is that as a coach, he’s rarely seen or shown in any of Tinmans media. Occasionally they’ll film him explaining a workout, but for the most part it’s the athletes. So when they don’t preform well it’s easier to blame the coach because people don’t really have a sense for who he is, and a lot of the stuff out there makes it seem like he’s very confident, almost overly so.

Another poster mentioned Marcus O’Sullivan. He has been consistently producing great runners for years now. Villanova always seems to have a whole horde of good milers especially. I’m also pretty interested in O’Sullivan’s Philosophy

Marcus just really believes in conservative aerobic development. His whole thing is a lot of bad coaches get away with some pretty aggressive training because they have a lot more room for error when the athlete is extremely talented.

In training doesn't really go beyond 400 meters at 3k pace or 600 meters at 5k pace with rests a lot longer than anyone would think you should.

Believes in a push vs pull approach where a lot of quality is done at or slower than threshold or with very long rests.

This slide is from a talk he gave several years ago which I think outlines his approach well.

https://imgur.com/a/qgWh4Ni

regenz wrote:

The woman was Rachel Schneider.

There are a lot of people that really support Tinman to no end, and there are probably a lot more people on here that really do not like him, but I think the training is really actually very solid.

What the haters really can never admit, even though it is probably true, is that if Tom had the disposition and humility of say a Mike Smith with the same results, he would be viewed very, very differently.

People for good reason have a hard time separating Tom's training from his demeanor, but it's actually very balanced and does a great job developing a large array of runners.

Yeah, that's because Mike Smith, Marcus O'Sullivan (mentioned in this thread) actually seem to respect other coaches and training and achieve their success in silence, which is, I think, admirable. Tinman basically "respects" while also stating that his way is the better way, when there really isn't any evidence of this being true.

I've said it on many threads but Tinman could be the best HS coach, probably ever, if he wanted to go that route. His training is perfect for them, but right now he has the most talented kids coming to him to cherry pick from. I don't think he has the temperament to motivate an entire team of kids with wide ranges in talent and motivation.

regenz wrote:

Marcus just really believes in conservative aerobic development. His whole thing is a lot of bad coaches get away with some pretty aggressive training because they have a lot more room for error when the athlete is extremely talented.

In training doesn't really go beyond 400 meters at 3k pace or 600 meters at 5k pace with rests a lot longer than anyone would think you should.

Believes in a push vs pull approach where a lot of quality is done at or slower than threshold or with very long rests.

This slide is from a talk he gave several years ago which I think outlines his approach well.

https://imgur.com/a/qgWh4Ni

I'm a big fan of Marcus and his training philosophy. He prioritizes an individual approach and development and it's very impressive the success he has ranging from the 1500 all the way to the 10k.

Han,

I know you had Tiernan's log from a few years ago, but do you have anything else from Nova by any chance? I had a few logs from a few of his guys back in the day, but a lot of it hard to pickup on strava because there is a lot of nuance in a lot of his training.

dont believe everything you read online wrote:

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

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?

The Webster definition is incorrect.

Ok. Go to any accepted dictionary and post their all their defintions. Let us know when you find one that disagrees with webster.

4:01 for Harrison prior to his junior year is way ahead of Drew Hunter.

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).

You were doing fine until you said, "Jonathan Marcus would say..."

zxcvzcvx wrote:

4:01 for Harrison prior to his junior year is way ahead of Drew Hunter.

Again, Harrison has been running for 10+ years while Drew started running in high school. Harrison has the world record for fastest half marathon by an 10 year old. Harrison was extremely fast well before Tinman got to him.

Comparing these groups is a bit ridiculous. You are comparing world class runners to more or less a fraternity of sorts. It's not even comparable.

zxcvzcvx wrote:

4:01 for Harrison prior to his junior year is way ahead of Drew Hunter.

Interesting. Same level as the 16 year old dane, Joel Ibler Lillesø , training more or less "the Ingebrigtsen way". 1500 3.44.50 and 5000 13.57. 60. Another dane Axel Vang Christensen 14.06. 51 some weeks before his 16th birthday.

Both athletes were focussed on age group records well before tincan got ahold of them. Harrison has made multiple sub 4 attempts over the last few months and failed. This past Saturday's effort was a dismal 4:08. The pressures getting to him. Puffer continues to get slaughtered by his local in-state (non-tincup coached) competition Gavin Sherry. Sherry's definitely got this kids number. The bottomline is tinfoil's got a decent system that several elite middle and high school athletes parents have bought into and he'll be able to monetize for several years to come cause he can point to those record holders as his prize possessions and get parents of middle of the pack athletes spending money to coach their athletes to potential future greatness. Got to give it to him. He knows how to make money.

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.

This all day long.

I do think that is the other side of it - a lot of people hate on Tinman's training, but it is just about as good as anything out there if you are not at the elite level.

It's balanced, manageable, and well rounded. You could do a lot worse than mimicking what he does and I think you see real evidence of how well his Tinman Track Club runners do under his system. Most all have improved at most all distances.

But again, it's hard to keep the training and the man separate.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

u maddd wrote:

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?

On the contrary, velocity is a concept from physics. The word is then used, and misused, by people wanting to sound scientific.