Tinman's training

WEJO asked recently if he was in jeopardy of becoming anemic. His serum ferritin stores were measured at roughly 37 migrograms per liter. The normal range for males is 20-300, so his count is low. What does this mean and what can he do about it?

Basically, his iron stores are getting low and soon, if it the value drops lower, he will experience sports anemia and subsequent decline in endurance performance. It is possible that he is already experiencing a small decline.

What should be or can be done about it? First, check your diet and see if you have a bunch of polyunsaturated fat in it. If so, get rid of it because it impairs absorbtion and utilization of iron, zince, and possibly magnesium; decreasing endurance performance (see

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmend&dopt=Abstra

...)

What food can you eat to help you with this problem? Soybeans. Yep, soybeans.

What supplements? Ferrous Sulfate (not fumerate) and Vitamin C. (Don't overdose though!)

Tinman ... Tom

II just thought I would help a guy who has done so much for us by providing a forum for runners spread all over the world. Thanks Weldon...and Rojo. Tinman ... Tom

All I know is my personal experience from 1985 when I had sports anemia. My hemoglobin was 12 and my serum ferritin was 24, if memory serves. The doctor told me to take ferous sulfate and drink OJ. I took vitamin C instead plus a B complex vitamin. I stopped training hard and just ran easy 5 milers for a month. I still felt horrible. I started running in the pool because I read that Red Blood Cells are destroyed by the pounding of feet on the pavement. After two more weeks of pool running and no land running, I felt a lot better. I still felt so-so when I was running for another 3 months and suffered anytime I went over about 6 miles. I was tested 8 weeks after starting to take the iron supplements and my hemoglobin was 13 something and my serum ferritin was in the 30s. I tested again after a winter of feeling cruddy and having a lot of ups and downs with fatigue. So, for me, it took a good 4 months or so before I felt alright again. I know that isn't what you wanted to hear.

I coached some women middle distance and distance runners at a university and two of my runners had anemia, really bad. One gal had a hemoglobin of 9 and the other was 10.5. I had them lay off of all anerobic work for a month, taking supplements, especially high doses of Vitamin C, and asked them to eat red meat everyday, thoug I think it ended up being more like 4 times weekly (one was a vegetarian and it was like pulling teeth to get her to eat burgers, steaks, etc.). Anyway, they both bounced back really well from the change in diet. Also, both of those women were heavy coffee drinkers, so that had to be cut out. Coffee robs the iron stores. After just a month of supplementation, reduced hard training, eating better, and getting rid of coffee, they both bounced back to around 12-13 for their hemoglobins. I have no idea what there ferritin store numbers were. Tinman

Tinman, When you say you felt horrible, what kind of symptoms are we talking about here?

At first I felt tired all the time, especially while in class. I wanted to sleep. I also felt really tired after climbing a couple flights of stairs to my dorm room. It felt like I just ran 10 miles or more.

Later, as I improved a little, I just felt tired while running, even slowly. I was running a minute per mile slower than normal and still feeling tired.

Once I improved further, I was ok, but not feeling any energy, during runs, but I had to limit my runs to no more than 6 miles because I would get so tired I felt like laying on the sidewalk and taking a nap. It was not a good feeling. Tinman

Johnson's middle distance coach reads letsrun.com, and he noticed that I have been a contributor. He emailed to me a few times for advice and feedback last fall and early winter. He seemed truly interested in helping his athlete fulfill his athelete's potential. He mentioned that Johnson had 45 speed for 400m, and he believed that Johnson has the potential to be outstanding. Johnson's coach seemed most interested in figuring out the right mix of training for his athlete. He wondered if more distance work would be important. I suggested that Johnson's improvements will continue if he gets in quality aerobic work, not just mileage.

With such great natural speed, Johnson is a marvel and has a talent most would kill for, so to speak. In the end, I emphasized that longer intervals (at Max VO2 velocity) would be critical to Johnson's progress to the upper ranks. I suggested that workouts such as 4 x 1k at 90% effort would be most helpful. Even repeat 600s should find a regular home in the training plan. Even LT training could be the first part of workouts. For example, after a mile or two of slower running and stretching, running 15 mintues at LT pace would provide training of faster muscle fibers to become more capable of generating force via aerobic processes and thus in the end contribute to improved performance. Even repeat miles or 1ks at about 80% effort help middle distance runners. Then, after the LT section of training, faster Max VO2 intervals or anaerobic sprints can be done.

Anyway, I felt confidence in Johnson's coach (I believe he is an assistant coach). He seemed genuine and supportive of his athelete's attempt to reach a high level of excellence. I was very confident his coach was going to be helpful to a lot of other athletes in the future, too. Tinman

Yes, it is true. His coach is smart enough to know that nobody knows enough and that everybody can learn more. He thought it was wise to consult others and ask for advice. I am sure that I am not the last person he asks for advice. All good coaches learn from other coaches. I am confident Johnson's coach knows what he is doing. The point is this: we can learn from each other. It is important make our running community aware that sharing secrets helps our collective progress. Sharing successful ideas and methods avoids the hit and miss that often occurs. We have a lot of talented athletes who end up injured or burned out. With better methods we can help more people succeed. Tinman

P.s. I owe a great debt to world class coaches like Bill Bowerman, Bill Dellinger, Jumbo Elliott, Jack Daniels, Pat Clohessy, Chris Wardlaw, Ed Jacoby, Ted Banks, Ted Hayden, Arthur Lydiard, Percy Cerutty, Harry Wilson, George Gandy, Ernest Van Aaken, Arch Jelly, and a bunch of coaches from sports such as swimming, cycling, triathlon, and cross-country skiing. Add together the ideas of famous sports science researchers like Costill, Saltin, Brooks, Jokyl, Puhls, Madsen, Mader, and host of other Europeans. They deserve all the praise I can give them for providing insights, theories, and proof about what is really happening inside the bodies of athletes.

Have someone look at your steps as you walk and run. Often the reason people pronate is because they swing their legs to the midlines of their body rather than straight forward. Tinman

Run on a treadmill looking into a mirror. Observe your leg swing. Make sure it goes straigth forward, not to the midline. You can wear different shoe types and witness what works best for you.

Run on sand with bare feet. Make sure your hips are directly under your shoulders, not behind, dragging. See what the foot pattern in the sand looks like (pigeon toed or otherwise). Correct your mistakes. Run just 60-70m at a time. Walk, rest, repeat. Focus on being fresh during each repetition in order to maximize learning effects for your neural system.

Third, take off your shoes and run on a flat grass surface; football field, soccer field, or park will do. Place your hands behind your lower back, clasping your fingers together. Try running now. You will find that if you are swing your legs toward the midline rather than straight forward, your body will bob back and forth as you run (with the hands behind your back). Focus on smoothing your running pattern so that your do not sway, do not bob. You will find a better leg swing (straight forward) and a more ideal footplant. Pay attention to how you feel when you are balanced. Remember this feeling as you return to your normal running routes and workouts. Tinman

Bump

I support the idea that overemphasis on the long run (when training for 10km and shorter) takes away solid training that can be done on other days. You simply are going to compromise the quality of other runs such as max VO2 sessions that require a runner to be fresh in order to stimulate maximal power output. Think of it this way: if you run a 20 miler on Sunday, after a Saturday race, then try to do an interval workout on either Monday or Tuesday, you will run a couple seconds per quarter mile slower in your reps due to fatigue. It is clear to anyone who looks at research and anyone who has the personal experience at top levels, like Malmo, that power has to be trained.

Bill Bowerman was adamant that his runners move along at an easy pace on non-interval, fartlek, or hill reps days. Why? He knew runners would not get the maximum benefits from their quality sessions if they were wiped from running too fast on distance days. His concept also holds true for long runs and how they affect faster training sessions. Bill Dellinger has often said that a collegiate distance runner need not run more than 15 miles for a long run. Why? Same reason as above; compromise.

Until people realize that quality aerobic sessions are critical to running success in the mile and up, they are always going to have less than optimal training. During the 10 weeks prior to an important race, I would rather a 29 minute 10k man run 100 miles per week in doubles, doing good workouts like 5-6 x 1 mile in 4:30 instead of 80-100 miles per week in singles with a 20 miler and a session of 5-6 x 1 mile in 4:40 because they were too tired to push the pace. Sure, slower sessions can fit into the schema, but the idea here is that quality sessions done often enough are going to break a runner out of their rut and make them drop a minute on their 10k time.

There is a time and place for everything. I don't wish to say that running 80 miles per week in singles with a 20 miler is useless; quite the contrary. Just don't adopt it as the only way to paradise. Do it for 2-3 months in the base period before doing mileage with quality included in the buildup 10 weeks or so before the important race.

One of the very biggest mistakes distance runners make is they drop their mileage as they add quality training. They build up an solid mileage base, which is good, and then when intervals are introduced they drop their mileage. Marty Liquori talked about such stupidity in his fine book on training. If you want to be a faster distance runner he said, keep up the miles while doing faster sessions. Otherwise, you are simply going to blow it! Liquori was right, in my opinion. Tinman

I think you are eluding to recovery. Whatever helps you recover and stay consistent is what you need. For some runners, easing out the hard workouts, yet maintaining mileage does the trick. For othes who are mostly putting in high mileage, dropping down the the total a bit will give their bodies a chance to replenish energy stores. Otherwise, it is a good bet to seek a place on your personal adaptation continuum just below breakdown and hold it there; varying the types of training you do every 4-6 weeks so that your neural system doesn't become habituated. You want steady improvement, of course, but changing training around before you get stale or wiped out is important. As a general rule, set a schedule for 4-6 weeks in which you start with a given base, introduce either intensity different from what you have been doing or duration more than you have been doing. By the third and fourth week you should be at peak intensity and or volume. The 5th and 6th week (if you are on a 6-week cycle) are maintenance (5th) and recovery (6th). I think it is unwise to count on peaking by reducing your training in the week prior to a big race. Sometimes it will work, others it won't. You may want to consider dropping back for about 5 days at the 10-15 day out range and then ease back to normal training, unless you are going to compete in a marathon. Have you ever noticed that you or friends have raced fast even when training "hard" or doing fairly high volume? That is because form is often independent of workload, rather an effect of consistent conditioning over the long-term. It really isn't about how many miles you are running or how hard the workouts are in a single week. Think about training in terms of longer cyles and you will notice that no single workout or week is critical to the peak race, but rather the blending of week upon week, cycle upon cycle, season upon season. To start the process of determining what works for you, experiment on yourself with a 4-6 week cycle, trying to keep most of your training choices the same and at a moderately high, but not exhausting level. Like a sciencist, adjust one item on the aresenal and see if that type of training and in that amount makes you fitter and faster. When I coach athletes, I generally change only one type of training in the preparation cycle at a time, otherwise I can't accurately figure out what is the cause of improvement or loss of form. Being systematic may help too. If you forget everything metioned here, at least make sure to change your training every 4-6 weeks and plan a recovery period of 4-7 days during every cycle by either reducing the intensity of your workouts or reducing the volume. I think it is often counter-productive to change both variables. The exception might be in a flat-out rest period after a hard season or marathon race. Then, walking around, swimming lightly, etc. is your ticket to recovery. Good luck. Tinman

Do a solid workout 10 days prior to each key race, then do no extended hard workouts after that; only maintenance and rhythm workouts that work for you.

There is some nice research out there on tapering and maintenance of fitness, notably work done by Houmard of Ball State, Coyle of Arizona, and a person from McMaster Univ. that eludes me now. Their research clearly shows a trend toward maintenance of fitness when intense workouts are preserved, though not necessarily in high volume. Tapering volume seems to be a bad thing also, if intensity is not included.

Now, about your situation, I say you are the best judge of your body. One week of reduced training after a hard week makes sense to me. If you are making progress, if your races are better than ever, I see no reason to doubt the merit of your approach. I do think that you are maintaining your fitness on your off-weeks. I would not change a thing unless you have stalemated and need to alter the variables a little. You are doing great. Keep it going! Tinman

5k pace divided by .93 = Lactate Threshold (4 mmol)

5k pace divided by .90 = 3 mmol (half marathon pace, approx.)

5k pace divided by .87 = 2.5 mmol (marathon race pace)

5k pace divided by .75 = 1 mmol (aerobic maintenance pace)

Going by these calculations here is what it works out for for a few different common paces for 5k.

Easy / recovery pace is .75 = 1 mmol (aerobic maintenance pace)

5k pace divided by .93 = Lactate Threshold (4 mmol)

15:32 / 5:00 = 5:23

16:03 / 5:10 = 5:33

16:34 / 5:20 = 5:44

5k pace divided by .90 = 3 mmol (half marathon pace, app.)

15:32 / 5:00 = 5:33

16:03 / 5:10 = 5:45

16:34 / 5:20 = 5:55

5k pace divided by .87 = 2.5 mmol (marathon race pace)

15:32 / 5:00 = 5:45

16:03 / 5:10 = 5:56

16:34 / 5:20 = 6:08

5k pace divided by .75 = 1 mmol (aerobic maintenance pace)

15:32 / 5:00 = 6:40

16:03 / 5:10 = 6:53

16:34 / 5:20 = 7:07

Regarding determining velocities for the various time frames that I have designated as important for conditioning, ideally you would want to run as fast as you could for a distance that approximates the time mentioned. However, I would not be fanatical about hitting the exact time. As a general rule, after a thorough warm-up, including a couple 200s at a moderate speed and 3 minutes of jogging around for recovery, run a all-out 300m and use that as your baseline velocity reference for anaerobic power training. You might run 150s at your 300m sprint speed for example to gain valuable speed (anaerobic power) for racing. For the other times mentioned, run all-out for a distance that approximates the given time or estimate. Just be reasonable about it. Use the paces for the vaious time-distance relationships as needed to make yourself a complete runner. Of course, the race distance you are aiming for is going to factor in as to whether you need to more anaerobic power work or more aerobic endurance work; the opposite ends of the the energy continuum. Good luck. Tinman

Since the CV is estimated at the maximum pace one could hold for 45 minutes, then running a continuous run for 5 miles, as you suggest, is going to be a bit far for an average workout, unless you are running 30 minute 10ks or faster, for example. If you are a 35 minute 10k runner, roughly 5:40 per mile, then a 5 mile CV tempo run would put you out there for nearly 29 minutes. That is possible to do, and does stretch the limits a bit. As a generalization, I believe continuous tempo runs should exceed no more than half the distance at the pace that one could run all out. So, if you are running CV pace (held for 45 minutes maximum, theoretically), then limit your continuous tempo runs at CV to about 22:30 or slightly less. If you are running marathon paced tempo runs, then cut your workout at 13.1 miles, except on a rare occassion, not to exceed 70%. It is valuable to do segmented tempo paced runs, so consider that as an option, especially as a way of not wiping yourself out while still getting some work in at the critical paces that promote threshld improvement, fuel efficience and economy enhancement for longer races. The key to determining whether you need to do long intervals at CV or other tempo paces versus continuous tempo runs becomes more apparent when you look at the big picture. I like to use two or three week training blocks or patterns, so when helping a runner chose workouts I look at what is to follow in two or three days afer every key workout. If you have a race in two or three days, a hard, continous tempo run is probably not a good choice. Runnin 5 x 1 mile at LT or 4 x 1 mile at CV three days prior to a race with 400 jogs between might be an excellent choice. If your block has a long run scheduled in two days, it might be a good idea to do a continuous tempo runs because depleting your reserves a bit might make the long run more beneficial, though certainly tougher. Big picture, big picture! Have fun... Tinman

I'd like to read the research you are referring to about reaching VO2 max in the first 300m at 800m race pace. It doesn't sound right to me. Perhaps if a person ran several reps at that pace and had fairly short rests VO2 max would be achieved by the 300m mark. Otherwise, I would guess more like 80% of max if it was the first rep with no running beforehand.

Regarding short rests between longer reps that peopl mention, people are confusing ventilation with actual VO2 achieved. Shortening the rests between longer reps does make ventialtion rates higher, but efficiency is lost due to ventilatory fatigue. So, therefore, O2 extraction is less even though breathing rates are higher with short rests. Also, just because your heart rate is higher does not mean that your O2 consumption is higher too. You can run two repeat miles at 3k pace with short rests (say 3 minutes) and have your heart rate on the second rep be near maximum, but your VO2 consumption is lower than if you ran the same pace with 7 minutes rests between in which your heart rate was 5-10 beats below maximum. Good research on the subject was done at the Univ. of MN back in the late 1960s or early 70s.

For someone who has never added any fast sprinting speed training, and consistently runs around a 54 sec 400 while training for the 10k, how much improvement would you think is possible? 2-4 sec's, 2-6 sec's?

2-3 seconds may be possible. Start with hills before doing to speed on the flats, though. As Renato states, work on your deficiencies. If you lack power, work on stride length while running uphill, pushing hard with each contact and lift your knees a couple inches more than you normally do while sprinting on the flat. If you lack turnover, cadence, then work on quick steps. Also, if you need work on turnover, find a gentle downhill, smooth and not cambered. Run down it focusing on faster steps. It will improve your neural capacity.

Later, after working on the hills for a month, then you can do some faster flat running. Hills can be part of your schedule throughout the year, so keep that in mind. History proves that great runners hit the hills regularly. Tinman

Cragg Advocate is supporting my contention that training aerobically is fairly simple. His 15 minute p.r. puts him at 4:50 per mile for the 5km race. I have suggested that an easy way to determine your three key aerobic paces is to add 2:00 per mile to your 5k pace for your standard distance pace, 1:00 per mile for faster distance runs, and 30 seconds per mile slower for threshold runs.

About anaerobic training, a lot of the improvement that helps a distance runner is neural. So, faster running improves power output and reduces oxygen cost (aka improved economy). The more you can improve without using fast training, the higher your peak will be: faster racing, eventually. Tinman

I have coached several runners in the 15:10 to 14:20 range. Most of them ran around 75 miles per week ,plus or minus a little. Only one guy run lower mileage yet ran 14:23 (he ran 45 miles per week, but he was a super talent). The pace for most of their distance runs was about 1:40-2:00 per mile slower than 5k race pace. Their fast distance runs were about 50-60 seconds per mile slower than 5k pace for up to 12 miles, often about 10 miles. Their interval sessions were repeate miles, mostly sometimes shorter or longer, with paces in the early part of the workout at 20-30 seconds per mile slower than 5k pace and at the end of the workotu faster than 5k pace by up to 10 seconds per mile. Most of the time they ran 3-5 reps of one mile each with sprints of 150s or 200s afterward.

I have coached a few good steeplers and 5k runners who hated the track and did only fartlek or tempo runs for training. One guy ran frequent 10 milers at about 5:30-5:40 pace (he was a 14:30-40 man...about 4:35-40 pace). He He would run about 3 interval workouts per season, at most. The rest of the time, he went out the door and ran moderate to hard for an hour. His moderate runs were about 6:00 per mile. Another runner ran fartleks on trails often, foregoing intervals except for an occassional 200m repeat session. I usually never saw him run, but the time he was gone was around 70 minutes on average. He knew what he was doing so I let him go. He raced well, so he was the master of his destiny, as far as I was concerned. Tinman

bump

Really minor thing. Unless I misremember (always possible) Lydiard's idea of 3/4 pce, 1/2 pace, etc. was NOT what they sound like, and unfortunately a great source of confusion. Don't have the book here to check so someone can correct me, but my memory is, Lydiard's 3/4 pace meant if you could race a mile in 5-flat, 3/4 pace was 5:06 or so, 1/2 pace was something like 5:12. My impression was that Lydiard's guys got their variation because one day there'd eb a 17-miler, the next they'd run a 1-mile TT and that's all.

Please pardon the interruption, and as I say, correct if memory is mistaken.

This is incredible stuff. PUT IT IN A BOOK please.

You are right about Lydiard's idea of what Lydiard called 3/4th effort for the mile: about 6 seconds slower than what you are capable of doing at the moment for the mile.

A great of example of what Lydiard's base training entailed, regarding pace, was shown here on letsrun.com about 6 months ago when someone posted the training of Peter Snell during his buildup prior to the 1964 Olympic Games. Snell's log showed that his mileage varied from day to day and his pace did too. His 3/4 th effort 10 milers were run at about 5:30 pace. His 1/2 effort distance runs were near 6:00 per mile, and his 1/4th efforts were around 6:20-30. I hope somebody saved them so we can get an exact idea of what they were. Regardless, if my memory is fairly accurate on this topic, then you can conclude that Snell ran at paces similar to what I have talked about in prior posts.

I have said that Easy paced distance runs should be about 2:00 per mile slower than 5k pace. Moderate distance paced runs should be at 1:30 per mile slower than 5k pace. Finally, aerobic threshold runs should be about 1:00 per mile slower than 5k pace. I suggest that Peter Snell's 5k pace during base training was probably darn close to 4:30 per mile. I think he probably could have run about a 14:00 5km race. Tinman

Tinman,

Do you still post here?

(obviously if not, anyone respond)

Great thread

What Johnson was this with the 45 speed

This thread is gold.

It does seem thought Tinman's philosophy has evolved into something that is much more focused critical velocity training, despite it only being mentioned briefly in these posts.

Anybody have an update on how his training philosophy has evolved?

Pretty sure he is referring to Jonathan Johnson. He was a 1:44 guy who went to Texas Tech and made the semis of the 2004 Olympics in the 800m.