TINMAN BASHES WEJO's COACH

If someone was claiming I stole their stuff I would care.

Tinman said Kellogg PLAGIARIZED both himself and Vigil. This is bogus, and he gave no example.

Read the whole thread. The other guy asks him for proof and Tinman never supplies it.

"First of all, Kellog has borrowed all of his recent "genius" concepts from others"

I don't think John has ever claimed to be a genius. He too acknowledges the greatness of past coaches, Lydiard expecially. He is simply trying to steer the ship back toward that direction and away from all the low mileage/3 days of speedwork a week mindset.

"VO2 max training does not improve aerobic endurance. In volume, it does just the opposite. It erodes aerobic endurance. It does raise power. Try doing low mileage with an emphasis on VO2 max training and you will get your butt kicked by someone else doing higher mileage, tempo runs plus a modest amount of VO2 max work, normally."

What is Vo2max? Maximum AEROBIC capacity. If you increase your Vo2max you increase your ability to use oxygen. Does this not increase endurance? I think we simply have a debate of words. STAMINA is the ability to go long distances. ENDURANCE is the ability to cover a certain distance in a faster time. One day a runner runs 5 miles in 28:00. A few months later the same runner runs 5 miles in 26:00. He has increased his endurance though his stamina is likely to remain unchanged. Kellogg has NEVER stressed increasing VO2max as the epitome of his program. He NEVER stresses a lot of volume in his VO2max workouts. Quite the opposite. He stresses restraint when going faster than threshold.

""What training mainly accomplishes is improving the speed at VO2 max." Absurd. VO2 max can improve up to 30-40% in most people."

The key word is MAINLY. Within only a few years of training you can raise your sedentary Vo2max up to 30-40% then it remains relatively the same. the same while further Vo2max training improves the velocity at Vo2max. He isn't wrong. You are simply debating linguistics. Think of two slopes. One continually climbing, the other leveling off.

I really wish Kellog's Paragon.com site was still up and running. That site had more information on his "ideas" than any other source. The problem is that Kellog doesn't have a document to point to so his words get mixed up from time to time.

"First of all, Kellog has borrowed all of his recent "genius" concepts from others"

I don't think John has ever claimed to be a genius. He too acknowledges the greatness of past coaches, Lydiard expecially. He is simply trying to steer the ship back toward that direction and away from all the low mileage/3 days of speedwork a week mindset.

"VO2 max training does not improve aerobic endurance. In volume, it does just the opposite. It erodes aerobic endurance. It does raise power. Try doing low mileage with an emphasis on VO2 max training and you will get your butt kicked by someone else doing higher mileage, tempo runs plus a modest amount of VO2 max work, normally."

What is Vo2max? Maximum AEROBIC capacity. If you increase your Vo2max you increase your ability to use oxygen. Does this not increase endurance? I think we simply have a debate of words. STAMINA is the ability to go long distances. ENDURANCE is the ability to cover a certain distance in a faster time. One day a runner runs 5 miles in 28:00. A few months later the same runner runs 5 miles in 26:00. He has increased his endurance though his stamina is likely to remain unchanged. Kellogg has NEVER stressed increasing VO2max as the epitome of his program. He NEVER stresses a lot of volume in his VO2max workouts. Quite the opposite. He stresses restraint when going faster than threshold.

""What training mainly accomplishes is improving the speed at VO2 max." Absurd. VO2 max can improve up to 30-40% in most people."

The key word is MAINLY. Within only a few years of training you can raise your sedentary Vo2max up to 30-40% then it remains relatively the same. the same while further Vo2max training improves the velocity at Vo2max. He isn't wrong. You are simply debating linguistics. Think of two slopes. One continually climbing, the other leveling off.

I really wish Kellog's Paragon.com site was still up and running. That site had more information on his "ideas" than any other source. The problem is that Kellog doesn't have a document to point to so his words get mixed up from time to time.

Runningart, here is the paragon site:

http://web.archive.org/web/20000818195628/http://www.paragonrunning.com/

Post your reply on run-insight. Some other guy took Tinman to task as well but for whatever reason, people were defending him.

J-B wrote:

Trapper John:

Behind that made up name, who are you and what have you done? You are having trouble living up to your own standards.

Ah, but I'm not "coaching" people on a public message board. I'm not telling people what they should do, how they should train, or anything else. So there is no reason for me to share my name. Nobody would care anyway. It shouldn't be that difficult of a concept to understand that Tinman should share his name, since he is sharing his "knowledge".

I thinking that this story may actually be true...shit!

Tinman is going to be admitting 'guilt by silence' within the next few hours, what a f*cker.

What is Tinman's real name?

frankly i find something askew with this entire thread. i'm not necessarily on the jk bus but the fact that nobody is defending tinman speaks volumes. i'm sure tinman is working on his manifesto rebuttal as we speak.

lefty wrote:

frankly i find something askew with this entire thread. i'm not necessarily on the jk bus but the fact that nobody is defending tinman speaks volumes. i'm sure tinman is working on his manifesto rebuttal as we speak.

Didn't he stop posting here?

A better question is

WHO FUCKING CARES?

"I'll be honest," he lied. His eighty-proof breath was fogging up his monitor. "Comments such as 'what is he smoking, anyway?' don't seem at all likely to have come from the perenially optimistic 'Tinman' who posts here."

He hated to think there were more levels of scurrilousness to an already pointless fracas; nevertheless, he continued spilling what was on his mind.

"Are people sure that these two 'stanni homines' are one and the same?" he mused. "'Cause if they are," he blared, shoving eight fully wrapped pieces of Savage Sour Apple-flavored Bubblicious into his flapping maw even as his soliloquy rose in volume and pitch, "Tinman - one or both of 'em - needs to take a closer, more complete look at what Kellog (sic) advocates in terms of how runners should allot their training energies - aerobic work versus LT stuff versus alactic drills versus oxygen-uptake (i.e., VO2 MAx) sessions."

Having already wandered much too far into territory of which he had little interest or understanding, he pledged to withdraw his questionable services from what was sure to be a growing lynch mob and - naked save for a Teletubbies codpiece he'd bought at a children's sex shop in the Castro - initiated a flurry of 1-900 calls he charged to a stolen credit card.

3rd Person Panache wrote:

"I'll be honest," he lied. His eighty-proof breath was fogging up his monitor. "Comments such as 'what is he smoking, anyway?' don't seem at all likely to have come from the perenially optimistic 'Tinman' who posts here."

See for yourself:

I just read that entire thread. Those guys are nerds. I challenge either one of them to an open 400.

I used to respect Tinman. But this attack on a fellow coach for no reason has me wondering about his own credibility. He has claimed that teams have used his system to produce national champions. Well I would like to see the proof.

well, i have just read that thread too and i notice that Glen Grant from the UK (via Latvia) is fully behind Tinman on this one, so i will keep an open mind until i have read the whole thing over again. I find that Glen is very thorough in his work, as well as being an excellent athlete himself.

From the run-insight thread...

"Research in Canada and at one of the Missouri schools, I forget which, possibly Troy State Univ., showed..."

Yeah, possibly Troy State University, which is in Alabama. Although I forget which one.

This guy has the sack to rip others for being sloppy or negligent with citations? Sheesh...

pedantic onanism

ben dovah wrote:

pedantic onanism

Good one!

dovah, what's your 400 time?

I bet they could take you. Tinman was a 4:20 miler off 30 miles per week and he was chronically injured.

I have read JKs stuff for years and Tinman's for the year or two that he has been posting. Generally, both of them have good things to say. JK is the commensurate training-philosopher who uses experience based and crude empirical data to support his assertions. Tinman is an extremely well-read exercise physiologist with enough coaching experience to move him out of the one-dimensional myopia common to exericise physiologists who once ran a 5:00 minute mile.

They are both insightful, intelligent and interested in raising the status quo of distance running in the US. Both are generally helpful. I can say with certainty that both have been wrong more than once. So have I and so have you.

If you disagree with Tinman's alleged assertions why not do what makes sense, whats logical, rather than go ape with an e-mob character lynching.

The logical and rational thing to do is carefully and methodically pick apart those statements with which you disagree.

Some of you JK loyals are pissed and are trying to defend him with emotion and a barrage of ad hominems directed at Tinman. Frankly, that is a very stupid way of mounting a real defense (and worthless too).

Think, analyse, and refute. Let the dialectic of ideas prevail and you might learn something. The alternative is to engage in an emotional fracas and aggitate yourself with chronic tension to the point of checking the boards everytime you are around a computer to see if anyone has replied to you--you've been sucked into the miasmic vortex of a message board war.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?