Serious Training Thread - Tinman Haters, what is his system missing?

TINjured wrote:

What is his system missing? How about someone getting through 5 months without an injury.

Apart from the new 3 additions, every single athlete in TME has been injured at least twice since starting with him. It is natural to get some injured athletes but the frequency at which his athletes are pulling up, is insane.

What do you think causes the high frequency of injury? Too many hills hard when tired?

lzlevee wrote:

TINjured wrote:

What is his system missing? How about someone getting through 5 months without an injury.

Apart from the new 3 additions, every single athlete in TME has been injured at least twice since starting with him. It is natural to get some injured athletes but the frequency at which his athletes are pulling up, is insane.

What do you think causes the high frequency of injury? Too many hills hard when tired?

While we have a mostly seriosu training thread I would love answer on this.

We all agree his training lacks intensity and volume. But why is everyone injured?

Is it because we actually know their daily whereas people like bowerman are completely closed door? Is it lack of physio/strength/recovery resources like say a oregon project has (this doesn't make sense though because plenty of guys chasing the dream don't have that and are fine). Do they not do the bad things? Too fast on easy days? Addidas shoes sucks?

I genuinely don't get the disconnect.

I can almost guarantee you the injury factor is simply that they are wayyyyy over-cautious with every little ache or pain. Most groups will notice these, evaluate, and run through them (when possible), whereas TME wants to “keep the ball rolling” so badly that they take time off at the nearest sign of pain.

I think the reason for high injury rates could be for a few reasons.

First, I think it has to do with the intensity of CV work. CV is faster than threshold. Tinman has said that one of the many reasons that he loves CV is that he has found athletes to run their threshold reps faster than their actual threshold and closer to their CV pace. I disagree with this. Even if it is true, if you have athletes running too fast on their threshold reps, if you assign them CV and they run faster than that you are getting into a higher intensity level. I have heard/read people complain that CV is just an excuse to run threshold reps too fast. I tend to believe that doing a higher volume of threshold is more beneficial than doing CV but I do think there is a place in training plans for all types of paces. I don't think it has to do with the hills after these reps. Running hills is actually pretty safe. Injuries could be related to his third level of stimulus. He usually assigns CV/threshold, then hills, then fast strides. Doing fast strides after CV and hills makes the workout pretty heavy.

Another reason might be their strength training/rehab/prehab exercises.

More information needed at this point. And that information is a season of racing. Nothing wrong with building a bigly base if you aren’t racing.

That’s not TMans fault. They need a consistent season of racing before we can accurately evaluate the training programme. No point in firing on all cylinders when there’s nothing going on. Staying healthy is important.

TINjured wrote:

What is his system missing? How about someone getting through 5 months without an injury.

Apart from the new 3 additions, every single athlete in TME has been injured at least twice since starting with him. It is natural to get some injured athletes but the frequency at which his athletes are pulling up, is insane.

For comparison, how many of jerry schumacher athletes been injured over the past 5 years? It isn't a short list.....

All of this hate for Tinman is completely irrational. Repeated here by many of you is, "my problem with Tinman". At least you all admit it. You have problems, all of your own.

Peerless Review wrote:

All of this hate for Tinman is completely irrational. Repeated here by many of you is, "my problem with Tinman". At least you all admit it. You have problems, all of your own.

No there was just 3 pages describing in detail, rationally, what we disagree with in his training philosophy.

We could do the same with Hansons, or the NAZ Elite Coach, or Saladbar, etc.

None of it was irrational.

This shows exactly why tinman is a hack. He's not a good enough coach or communicator to get his athletes to actually run the right threshold pace when prescribes it. So he says F-it and just makes them run CV pace.

CV pace has a much higher injury rate than threshold, and doesn't even produce better training benefits. He also seems to think you can recover just as quickly from CV as you can from threshold, which is incorrect.

And when you do your fastest training at the end of every workout, the fatigue causes bad form and thus injuries. And the additional stress on your body of doing so many different paces then getting high impact at the end is bad news.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

[quote]lzlevee wrote:

b) Not quite hard work both in terms of total volume and quality work. You can get into really good shape doing 90% but at some point you have to do that last 10% which I haven't seen them do in the posted schedules/workouts. Have a feeling in another 5 years ever elite guy is going to be doing those double workout days at least once/week.

How did that work out for Hall, Ritz, and Webb?

Peerless Review wrote:

All of this hate for Tinman is completely irrational. Repeated here by many of you is, "my problem with Tinman". At least you all admit it. You have problems, all of your own.

+1

I think most critics haven't tried his system and don't know the real details, or don't care to learn them. I've seen nothing but assumptions, many of which are easy to see are false if you actually look at the training. If something doesn't fit the "correct" mold, then it's wrong. There are so many different roads to Rome.

Is higher intensity work absent? No, the quantity is lower than others though. Is Vo2 work absent? Not at all, except for people training for the half/full marathon. Vo2max isn't predictive of performance for the marathon. If you had two runners, one with a vo2max of 75 and the other with 80, you couldn't reliably predict who would finish first in a marathon. That's why they aren't running those workouts. He's said that his mid distance runners get vo2 work at least once every two weeks, sometimes more.

Reed hit a pothole and tripped, twice, and continued running with blood streaming down his face only because he didn't want to drop out of his first marathon and it was the olympic trials. Not the best of days for him, not his fault either. The situation with Drew at the 2019 U.S. champs 5k was even worse. He had three fractures in his foot and a torn plantar at the end of that race, but it's gotta be his lack of speed, right?

The workouts are layered and typically go from slower to faster. When you sprint at the end of a 5k or 10k, do you risk injury? No, because you've completely warmed up by then. Each segment warms you up for the next. The volume of the workouts seem lower because they integrate multiple stressors. How fast are you running when you sprint at the end of a race in the 1500m, 5k, or anything longer? No faster than 800m pace in most cases, unless you're Haile G who can run the last 200m in 25. That's what they do in workouts. They also mimic the conditions experienced in races, but with less fatigue so they can do them well.

CV is a useful training tool. Threshold is a useful training tool. There are reasons for doing both of them. CV improves LT more per unit time than threshold work does, plus it improves vo2max to an extent. That's just something you can observe in a lab. The argument that that specific pace causes more injuries makes no sense whatsoever. Surely 5k pace must cause even more injuries then since it's even faster than CV and threshold, right? If someone runs a CV workout, but uses a volume more suitable for threshold workouts, then that's a recipe for injury. Given the same volume of CV and threshold in a workout, of course you'd take longer to recover after CV work. It's the same volume at a faster pace. The volume for a CV workout might be about 3/5 that of a threshold workout to have a similar stress.

chimo wrote:

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

[quote]lzlevee wrote:

b) Not quite hard work both in terms of total volume and quality work. You can get into really good shape doing 90% but at some point you have to do that last 10% which I haven't seen them do in the posted schedules/workouts. Have a feeling in another 5 years ever elite guy is going to be doing those double workout days at least once/week.

How did that work out for Hall, Ritz, and Webb?

Pretty well. If you told pretty much any of the tinman athletes they would set AR on the track or finish 3rd at boston and win the US trials, I am guessing they would take it:) Obviously it is a very fine line we are talking between 90%,100%, and 110% and you make good arguements that both Webb and Hall slightly over did. But wouldn't you rather run a 3:47 and have a short career versus running 3:51 and have a long one?

Kicker wrote:

Is higher intensity work absent? No, the quantity is lower than others though. Is Vo2 work absent? Not at all, except for people training for the half/full marathon. Vo2max isn't predictive of performance for the marathon. If you had two runners, one with a vo2max of 75 and the other with 80, you couldn't reliably predict who would finish first in a marathon. That's why they aren't running those workouts. He's said that his mid distance runners get vo2 work at least once every two weeks, sometimes more.

.

Sure but that isn't what we are looking. What we are looking is:

Runner A with a vo2max of 75

Runner A with a Vo2Max of 80

What are the odds that that runner who has improved his Vo2 to 80 is going to beat the version of himself that is down at 75?

And lets not forgot the Vo2Max refers to the intensity of the work not the improvement that comes about......

Now the evidence of exact volumes and effects of training isn't something that can be exactly quantified. But most elite athletes whose logs we have seen tend to do a bit more of that quality work. Maybe they were all wrong...

Runner A with a Vo2max of 75 isn't going to become a runner with a Vo2max of 80. That's almost a 7% increase and that never happens in elite runners. They're still doing some Vo2max work, just an amount that is proportional to the importance it has for the marathon (not very much). The time is better spent working on things that are more relevant.

It's easy to say that more is better and pile on hard workouts and mileage when it's worked before. There's a point of diminishing returns and this is really just a question of optimization, which depends on the athlete. He says that point is earlier than most schools of thought believe right now. That's it.

You can regurgitate Tinman lectures all you want, but it doesn't make it accurate.

Here are the FACTS:

Tinman athletes haven't accomplished anything noteworthy considering their talent level.

Tinman cannot keep athletes healthy despite a much SOFTER training load.

You can't use Drew Hunter's injuries as a defense of Tinman's training. His injuries are literally BECAUSE OF TINMAN'S TRAINING.

It's easier to sprint a 25 second last 200m of a race if you improve your max speed to 22/23 seconds per 200.

I can list more, but I can tell you drank their kool-aid so you wouldn't listen anyway. In fact, my bet is you are currently paying Tinman money to coach you.

I'm not a Tinman hater but I'll give my 2 cents about the difference between Tinman and almost every other coach I've seen, and I'm surprised this isn't mentioned more:

Large variety of paces within each and every workout

- 7 x 3/1min @CV + 7 x 30sec Hills @Mile + 7 x 15sec @800

- 5 x 1mi/90sec @LT + 5 x 40sec Hills @3K/Mile + 7 x 20sec @Mile/800

- 6mi Tempo + 8 x 30sec @Mile

These are the 3 core workouts (subtle variations) for all Tinman athletes. Not a week goes by throughout the year when his athletes don't do at least one of these workouts. Tacking on speed at the end of a workout isn't anything new, but I haven't seen it done this often with any other coach. I know most people think Tinman = CV and that's his big difference, but I honestly don't think that's any different the pace the Ingebrigstens call "Threshold" for their K reps and they do that every week. It's not a special thing. This range of paces within EVERY. SINGLE. WORKOUT. is the difference. Is it a good difference? Is this thing make athletes better? Is it potentially causing a higher frequency of injuries somehow? I don't know. It just seems like this obvious difference between Tinman and just about every other "elite" coach is pretty glaring.

Just anecdotally:

- BTC never does it (Strength, Speed, Specific sessions are separated very clearly)

- OPJ added 200's after strength sessions on occasion but seemed to do so near peaking time only

- Lots of major college programs add 2 to 4 x 200 at the end of workouts but not all the time

- Ingebrigstens never do it

- Ron Warhurst is maybe the closest example as he did this kind of thing a bunch by using Tempos before proper speed work but the tempos seemed more like big warmups than sessions themselves and the speed work was much more specific in nature

I'm not taking a side here, I'm just pointing out a pretty glaring difference that hasn't seemed to have gotten a whole lot of attention

Well, since you ask...

Training is not always physical preparation. You cannot do every workout with a "one more rep" mentality. You play how you practice...

Also, I think they are too emotionally soft for the hardships of this sport. They spend too much energy crying on instagram and not enough energy training, maybe doing weights or drill work would help.

Additionally, they are quite far talented. Half of their team would not make an NCAA final. Sam Parsons is as washed up as they come, and blames injury for his shortcomings.

I mean come on, most people at the age of 26 years old living on Drew Hunter's couch, living like a "pro" athlete (which is quite far from the truth) should be able to run 3:59, 7:55, 13:30, however many of their athletes cannot do so at the moment.

To answer your question, however, the plain and simple fact is that they do not train hard enough. Everything they do needs to be ramped up at least 20% in volume and speed for them to take any steps forward in their careers. Highly unlikely though.

Have nobody else noticed that Tom Schwartz has only had relatively high success at the high school level?

Anyways, they will continue to sell their diaries on instagram and Drew Hunter will continue to adopt desparate NCAA athletes to come live on his couch. Sad, but true.

Kicker wrote:

Runner A with a Vo2max of 75 isn't going to become a runner with a Vo2max of 80. That's almost a 7% increase and that never happens in elite runners. They're still doing some Vo2max work, just an amount that is proportional to the importance it has for the marathon (not very much). The time is better spent working on things that are more relevant.

It's easy to say that more is better and pile on hard workouts and mileage when it's worked before. There's a point of diminishing returns and this is really just a question of optimization, which depends on the athlete. He says that point is earlier than most schools of thought believe right now. That's it.

Sure in the real world we are talking about being a 76 instead of 75 (and even that might be a stretch) but that doesn't really change the point does it? We are talking about the work that gets you that last 1-2% of performance. For a guy like Drew Hunter that is like 5-10s in a 5000m. For an age grouper that might not matter. Run a 22 min 5k or a 21:40 and it really doesn't matter. But the difference between a 13:15 and 13:05 might be the difference between being an olympian and watching the games on TV.

And yes it is largely a question of if he is getting close enough to the line. If his training gets you to say 97-99% is that better or worse than training that gets you to 99-101%? Sure you never cross the line but you are also never getting that peak performance.

I know what you're saying , but the context matters. Are they running the marathon or the 5k? For Drew, it matters because that's much more important for his race distance(s). For Reed, not really.

As for whether Drew will reach that level or not, we'll see. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility at all and he's proven to be a great competitor. I think his mentality is just that he's in it for the long haul. He has a 10 year contract with Adidas and I understand him not wanting to risk over-training with the injuries he's dealt with over the past year or two, which could set him back more. They talk about keeping the ball rolling but he might've over done it in his build-up to the 2019 champs, got nervous about making the world team and bumped things up too much or too soon. That's just a guess though.

Like you said, I think it's a toss up. Get to the line healthy and not 100% sharp, or risk injury and not get to the line? It depends on the person and if they can run fast enough at 97-99%. Some people are really durable and can take pretty much anything you throw at them. Nick Symmonds said one of his strengths was durability. He didn't have any significant injuries until the end of his career. He's also an example of someone who didn't train at 100-101%, yet he was one of the most consistent and successful 800m runners the U.S. had seen for a decent stretch of time. To quote him, he was a "B+ trainer, A+ racer". Webb was similarly durable and could absorb work like nobody else, until he couldn't. I think he found his limit around the time he broke the American mile record, but then he tried to surpass that and it just destroyed him. Whatever someone's personal limit, they should find it and make the call depending on the circumstances. You can be successful both ways. One is the safer and more consistent bet than the other though.