Tinman - question

Tincan is a phony and an armchair exercise physiologt. don't listen to anything he says

Craptastic Sam wrote:

Tincan is a phony and an armchair exercise physiologt. don't listen to anything he says

You sir are an asshead. Tinman is just as well informed on what he is talking about as anyone else on these boards. Shit, even Dr. Daniels (who I'm sure isn't as "armchair physiologist") has taken his advice. If Daniels considers his work and research good enough to incorporate into his own plans, it's good enough for me.

dc449 wrote:

Craptastic Sam wrote:

Tincan is a phony and an armchair exercise physiologt. don't listen to anything he says

You sir are an asshead. Tinman is just as well informed on what he is talking about as anyone else on these boards. Shit, even Dr. Daniels (who I'm sure isn't as "armchair physiologist") has taken his advice. If Daniels considers his work and research good enough to incorporate into his own plans, it's good enough for me.

agree with dc449.

Dr. Daniels is a fraud who hides behind the veil of his PhD and being a so-called "scientist" when his discipline (exericse physiology) isn't even a legitimate science at all. FUCK JACK DANIELS!

bump

I believe Renato Canova mentioned being about to try tripples out once upon a time...

Craptastic Sam wrote:

Dr. Daniels is a fraud who hides behind the veil of his PhD and being a so-called "scientist" when his discipline (exericse physiology) isn't even a legitimate science at all. FUCK JACK DANIELS!

and just how many olympic athletes have you tested/coached, pray tell? dating back to the 60s?

If youre looking for Tinman, you may have better luck over at run-insight.com.

I havnt read the study, but I have heard people comment (I cannot attest to the validity of this though) that he tested untrained subjects, which may or may not be really applicable. If your just beginning, splitting up your miles lessens the change of injury a lot, rather than just doing one run. If these guys had never ran much, perhaps the ones that split the miles up 3x a day simply stayed less injured that those running one longer run.

If you asking is 3, 3, and 3 miles better than 9 a day aerobically, its not. However, if you can already handle say a double of 12 and 8, adding more miles may be the ticket. Of course it may only tire you out if you cant nap, get massage, etc like the pros whose life is dedicated to running. If you have time, give it a shot! Youll find what works best for you through trial and error better than any study.

I don't know about the study the coach Roy Benson mentions. I have read about two studies that showed that split training was equal to or better for improving maximal aerobic capacity. The first was in a handbook written by a high school coach in Minnesota. He did not have a reference article, just a name of the guy who did the research in Australia. The evidence showed that it did not matter if a runner did 2 runs of 30 minutes per day or 1 run of 60 minutes per day at 75% of max VO2 (about the aerobic threshold level...OBLA).

The other study was done in Russia and I think that either Dr. Viru of Estonia cited it in an article (perhaps the International Journal of Sports Medicine). That article presented information about mitochondrial volume and density increases relative to frequency of workouts. Apparently, swimming 30 minutes at a moderately aggressive level, resting 2 hours, repeat for a total of 4 x 30 minutes was a superior way to elevate aerobic processes within mitochondria. There was some sort of cascade in which one workout elevate the mitochondria so that in the next 30 minute session there was a higher baseline level. Each subsequent 30 minutes session, after a 2 hour respite, elevated the aerobic capacity of fibers involved. Hence, the recommendation is it is more effective to do 4 x 30 minutes with 2 hour breaks between sessions than single 2 hour sessions (which were also done for comparison within the study). Tinman

Daniels recommends when you get to the point of runnning around 70 miles per week you should switch to doubles. I have a hard time understanding the logic however behind 2x30 minutes over 1 hour run. I can understand the recovery aspect between 4x30 minutes and 2 hours straight. But 1 hour versus 2x30 minutes doesn't seem to make sense. I would think you would benefit more from just the 1 hour straight.

I thought that Daniels said that when you start getting over 50 you should double?

I remember Bob Sevene telling me that he and jack would argue at Athletics West over the issue of doubles versus singles, Sev preferring the singles. Despite his intuition, Sev said the tests results showed no change in VO2, LT, economy, etc.

Also interesting ,in light of Tinman's summary of the 2hr separation wkts , that the Kenyans finish a morning run around 7AM and then start the day's harder wkt at 10am.

3X/days in Kenya seem mostly used only in training camps, with most runners only training twice a day. 3X training is perhaps more appropriately compared to so-called "crash training," with a sharp increase in training load for a period of time, followed by an equal recovery period of much lower training load. But even those Kenyans training only twice a day still keep to the 7AM-10AM schedule, from what has been written about their training.

There is research that has been published regarding muscular as opposed to cardiovascular recovery from training. The muscular repair and recovery (instrumented in labs) is mostly completed in 24 hours and entirely completed (within the ability of instruments to measure) within 36 hours. So the 7AM-10AM regimen gives more complete recovery than the AM-PM method that most North Americans use.

check the training of augustin choge(12:57) and isaac songok(3:30):lots of triples but only few long(er) runs:

http://www.scottdouglas.biz/Mishmash/jan05.htm

Brendan Foster also had some days a week where he ran 3x5-6 miles.