For folks more versed in tinman training than myself, how would you structure a tinman style week for the typical hobby jogger doing 40mpw (maybe getting up to 50 when peaking for a marathon) ?
For folks more versed in tinman training than myself, how would you structure a tinman style week for the typical hobby jogger doing 40mpw (maybe getting up to 50 when peaking for a marathon) ?
If it takes doping to win, if that's what you are insinuating, then they should dope. I for one do not believe EPO is magic. You have to be a stud. There may be more effect via placebo than actual drug.
My first point about talent is simple: it's overrated as the reason for success of top-tier performers in any endeavor. Top athletes, just like top-tier performers in music, academics, professions, or being parents or spouses, are very dedicated and disciplined; they work a lot and don't rely on talent alone!
The average Joe or Jane thinks elite runners are just lucky; they got all the genetic gifts. But, the truth is, genetics is just one portion of the equation. Just as important is a combination of high level of sustained work (often over many years), opportunities, and instruction/coaching. The work must be productive. It's not enough to just train hard. One has to train smart on a regular basis. Sometimes that means the slowing down the rate of progress is necessary, so the final result down the road is higher. Rapid results too often end in disaster, experience shows.
Athletes must put their feet to the fire... they need to compete against the best, struggle, and learn. The school of hard knocks (competitions) teaches people that everyone at the highest level is fit and determined to succeed. There are no slackers! Strategies and tactics matter a lot, and one must be fully committed to using them when the pressure is high.
I look at Matt Centrowitz as a great example of someone who employed a specific strategy -> get to the front with 400m to go in the final of the 1500m in the Olympic Games and run full out. *If you are in front in a slow paced, tactical, race; you're gonna medal. If you lag at the back in a slow paced race and have to pass on the outside of runners; that means you're essentially gonna have to be a full second faster than them on the last lap to beat them. Which is better? Be in front and gun it and hold on or be at the back and have to run much faster than everyone else the last lap to medal?
The following is about my goals and and delivery.
First, my goal has been to make it possible for more runners to succeed at the highest levels. I love the sport and want more young athletes to grow up and stay involved in it. When they succeed, they stay in the sport. If they get injured often and don't see continued progress; they bail on the sport. In my view, if we have training methods that are patient - i.e. not overloading athletes to get rapid results - it's more likely they will continue to make progress over the years and enjoy the sport at higher levels - than burn out. I'm not convinced we should accept the methods of the past as the final say on how to train athletes. Either we believe that all knowledge has been acquired or we seek to learn more. Other sports evolve over time; they find better better ways to train athletes. Why not our sport too?
I'm a big supporter of the legendary coaches of the past - Lydiard, Bowerman, Groves, Dellinger, Bell, Cerutty, Wilson, Stampfl, Igloi, Vigils, Daniels and many more. I don't believe any of them would stop refining their methods as long as they had a breath in their bodies. Each probably strove initially to improve for at least two reasons: help their athletes reach higher levels of success and enjoy personal growth for themselves: the challenge of getting better at one's passion. I think many of the greats started with the first two goals, but eventually they moved to a third (perhaps more important) goal: helping the running community learn better methods of training and competing. They spread the word about their ideas regarding training in lectures or books. I'm trying to follow their lead and do my part to help the sport grow.
Second, depending upon where you grew up, how you communicate ideas varies. Regional differences matter. In the South, a certain way of speaking is different than it is in the North. The coasts have completely different ways of speaking.
Where I grew up in the upper Midwest, directness was the norm. If you disagreed on a topic, you said so. You explained your point of view about a topic purely based on logic, external evidence, and experience. It was not considered impolite to be direct as long as it wasn't personal. I've stepped over the line, just as others have, and regret it. Passion sometimes gets in the way of being polished, and one cannot read the minds of others well.
I learned when I moved to the West that people out here are far less direct vs where I grew up. They consider it confrontational to boldly say anything is true. It's more important to talk about other people, generalize, and be soft in one's tone. I once went to NYC and found that my way of speaking was in fact quite tame. People in Brooklyn, for example, told me straight up that they thought my choice of food was dumb, and my choice of beer was not good. I thought I was direct, but wow they hold nothing back!
My point is, just because I say that I think a certain method of training works better than another; that doesn't mean you can't say what you believe to be better and argue for it. I tend to be a logical guy and speak from an evidence point of view. That's my way. But, I fully admit that I could be far more polished in how I present information. Remember, I'm not trying to dismiss anyone on purpose. I do so because it's hard to know how to always speak perfectly. I say what I think is true because that's what I learned growing up. You can say what you believe and argue for it, and I will do the same and we'll be friends because it's not personal. We are both passionate about the sport.
Third, I think it's a good goal to send athletes to the US Olympic Trials and have them perform well. To say that I must coach Olympic goal medalist to be a credible coach is simply absurd. That's like saying our high school coaches in America are lame because they don't coach Olympic medalists. That's like saying someone is a lousy college coach because their team hasn't won that national championship. Really?
As coaches, we serve our athletes by helping them to move up the ladder of their potential. If they have not qualified for the US Olympic Trials before; helping them reach that goal is both realistic and honorable. Once they reach that level of success; we can talk about getting them to the Olympic Games or to the finals of their event; if there is a qualifying round. Incremental improvement is a prudent goal. And, just because an athletes doesn't win a medal in the Olympic doesn't mean he or she is a failure; nor the coach. It's insanely difficult to make to that level; let's be real. Let's honor the effort and work people put in to get better.
Enjoy your day!
Coach T
Tom,
I still am amazed at how generous you were with your time with me and the athletes I coached. This was way back in 2005 when I needed guidance with a couple of national caliber runners. I still have binders full of copies of the emails you sent me , and I recall having conversations with you at times when you clearly could have been doing other things - and all for someone who you had never laid eyes on, and at no cost whatsoever. Your input has greatly influenced my coaching philosophy, and I, for one, am thankful for all your help. Keep up the good fight, ignore the 'haters' and know that the good you do is appreciated by those whose lives you touch.
Tinman is about Ego. His training works. Others don't. He's like the guy who knows a lot, but lacks perspective so he thinks he has the answer. It's hubris. Is there anything wrong with that? That's up to you to decide.
He's a good coach. But there isn't anything revolutionary in his training.
CV isn't new. Old guys called it 10k paced or XC paced intervals. Cyclists called it Critical Power in the 80's.
He smartly doesn't overtrain guys. But "train don't strain" has been a motto of several coaches for decades.
Have a great holiday season, Tinman, and everyone on LRC.
Thank you for spending some of your holiday time with us.
That's for the post, Tinman! Nevermind the snowflakes on here. I'm from the West and I appreciate your directness.
Right on Tom! My folks are from Michigan, so I know about the "plain-spoken" directness. Just keep doing your thing, your results speak volumes against all the full-time hater-trolls on here. If you don't get hate on LRC, either you aren't doing and saying anything substantial or aren't regularly posting under a registered handle. Camille MF Herron comes from here to run multiple world records, and her results get spat on by anon letsrun ijjits (ALRI) constantly.
Keep up the truly good work and have a wonderful, well-deserved holiday!
Asdfdsa wrote:
For folks more versed in tinman training than myself, how would you structure a tinman style week for the typical hobby jogger doing 40mpw (maybe getting up to 50 when peaking for a marathon) ?
Not versed, but after listening to the podcast:
Think about structuring a Tinman year rather than a week. Keep the ball rolling, which means thinking long and hard about structuring a week that can be repeated. The mileage has to fit with the other stresses in your life. Easy days have to be very easy, not short, but easy, with some 30 sec hill sprints at the end twice a week. The high school type of week would suit a typical hobby jogger:
Monday, long run 60 to 90 minutes or more
Tuesday, easy distance
Wednesday, speed
Thursday, easy distance
Friday, easy, shorter
Saturday, race or CV work
Sunday, easy distance
Tinman, best $32 I ever spent! Thanks!
Two questions:
1) You said in one of the lectures that the biggest stroke volumes were seen in cross-country ski people. Should runners cross-train with cross-country skiing or a Nordic Trac? Or is a stroke volume that large not needed for running?
2) If I get a Stryd power meter, do you put it on one shoe at a time? Or do you get two and put one on each shoe?
Thanks again.
SlowFatMaster wrote:
2) If I get a Stryd power meter, do you put it on one shoe at a time? Or do you get two and put one on each shoe?
Thanks again.
For now, just one. Keep it consistent with placement and the shoe you wear it on.
sword of tin wrote:
Tinman is about Ego. His training works. Others don't. He's like the guy who knows a lot, but lacks perspective so he thinks he has the answer. It's hubris. Is there anything wrong with that? That's up to you to decide.
He's a good coach. But there isn't anything revolutionary in his training.
CV isn't new. Old guys called it 10k paced or XC paced intervals. Cyclists called it Critical Power in the 80's.
He smartly doesn't overtrain guys. But "train don't strain" has been a motto of several coaches for decades.
Yeah no sh*t dude. What amazes me is all these atheletes/coaches know this as commmon sense but consistently fail to implement it. I coach in the NCAA and my contemporaries all tell kids on recruiting visits “ohh we individualize things here, it’s not one size fits all, we believe in moderation, blah blah blah.” Then what do they do? They do the exact opposite. At least Tinman puts his money where his mouth is and sticks to his guns when concerning his voiced philosophy. THATS where he differs and THATS where he gets my respect. Who knew that it takes a common sense guy to do a common sense approach to training.
There's one word that instantly comes to mind, Tinman, when I read about you, or when I read or hear your own words: RESPECT. Detractors will always come out of the woodwork to demean someone of your abilities and integrity. More power to you and your stable of studs. Onward and upward to greater heights!
I think he actually did much better in this podcast. I felt like that listening to an interview he was doing a couple years back...where he disregarded Seilers work (at least it came off that way) and was also asked about using power meters (I believe) as a tool to gauge/prescribe work and he came off as pretty cynical...almost bashing it. This podcast he was more eliquant I think...much more thoughtful in responses. I do think it's interesting that he prescribes "10k or CV" pace in a much lower dose than what Seilers had concluded...I think Seilers said pretty much to do as much time as you can reasonably manage (one rower would accumulate 60minutes a session 6x10 min at the intensity prior to the olympics). Mr Shwartz said for a marathoner 24ish minutes is enough...I think per wk. What I think sets him apart is his advocation of combining a lot of different paces and changing this thought that we should train one system at a time.
And why doesn't he coach any women?
Zee wrote:
And why doesn't he coach any women?
Personal charm would not appear to be his strong suite, not that will be a problem once he has a bit more success. People were asking the same question about Schumacher until he brought in Shalane.
He would have been a good match with Desi though.
As far as Stephen Seiler (one "s") s concerned, I agree he used to emphasize LT training volume more; he has gone to a more fully polarized model with about an 80/20 distribution, with the "80" being very easy. This is congruent with tinman, I believe, so they seem to have converged in their philosophies.
Well......Of course big talent is a must to reach world records and medals in the international championship races for a runner of today. Gone are the days when a runner of little more than average talent could reach the world top (without doping of course) . And of course the talented runner just can`t sit there with the talent and reach the top without working for it. To reach the world top is a combination of great talent and smart work in a very good training system with a very good coach as conductor. And of course a coach can be very good even if he/she never will coach an Olympic or other international championship medalist. I use to say that a coach that can develop all runners except from level without exceptions is a very good coach.
Our sport will of course also evolve into the future with pioneers (as for example myself) , but I think it`s not a matter of inventing the wheel once more, but refine the already excisting known methods to be even more effective.
Hope for a successful new year to all of you! ))
COACH J.S
@Tinman or anyone else that knows:
You always used to have the following rough program (based on 17 Min 5k runner):
1x CV session, e.g 5x1000m in 3:30 + 5x200 in 34
1x TempoRun at "Tinman Tempo", 30-40 Min (~3:55/km, = MARATHON pace!)
1x Long Run easy
Easy runs with strides/hill sprints
Now in the podcast you say that Marathonpace (aka Tinman Tempo) is bad and CV and threshold intervals are more effective. Should I replace the Tinman Tempo with a Threshold session, like 4x2000 in 3:40? Or is it worth keeping the Tinman Tempo and alternate it with the Threshold intervals?
Hanzo wrote:
@Tinman or anyone else that knows:
You always used to have the following rough program (based on 17 Min 5k runner):
1x CV session, e.g 5x1000m in 3:30 + 5x200 in 34
1x TempoRun at "Tinman Tempo", 30-40 Min (~3:55/km, = MARATHON pace!)
1x Long Run easy
Easy runs with strides/hill sprints
Now in the podcast you say that Marathonpace (aka Tinman Tempo) is bad and CV and threshold intervals are more effective. Should I replace the Tinman Tempo with a Threshold session, like 4x2000 in 3:40? Or is it worth keeping the Tinman Tempo and alternate it with the Threshold intervals?
You should replace Tinman with COACH J.S , hehe! :)