Hanzo wrote:
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?
Is the Tinman Tempo anything like the Icky Shuffle?
Another Great Tom "Tinman" Schwartz Podcast
Training Advice/Discussion
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
Is the Tinman Tempo anything like the Icky Shuffle?
-
YMMV wrote:
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.
+1
Although not sure Desi would enjoy being the #1 female in Tinman Elite to attract more females to the team.
-
The answer was in response to why Brogan Austin never did anything at marathon pace. He certainly did longer tempos slower than marathon pace. So in typical Tinman style, the work was above and below actual marathon pace.
I assume you are training for 5k's, not marathons? The Tinman tempo (5K pace + 1:00 per mile) would probably be faster than marathon pace for most 17:00 5K'rs.
If you are consistently doing high volume CV work every week, I would still do a Tinman tempo once a week. Can even do it on the back half of a long run.
Regarding threshold - the weekly workout could look something like 1*2K at Threshold, 4*1K CV, 4*200 @ 800-1600.
Mix it up!
-
Thanks for the tips!
Yes, I'm a relatively new runner and in my case Tinman Tempo would most likely be faster than M-pace (I never raced HM or M and I'm more FT with a lot of speed).
My weekly CV workout is usually 2k WU, 1k Tinman Tempo, 4-5x1000 in 3:35 (200m rest very slow in 1:30), 4-6x [email protected], 2-3k CD.
Easy runs 8:00-9:00, sometimes VERY slow when I have massive fatigue after races or training spikes. Most times some strides or hills after.
Long runs easy, once I'm stable with them I progress last few miles to Tinman Tempo.
And 2nd workout I will keep the Tinman Tempo and extend it from currently 30 min to 40 min. Maybe do some threshold intervals like 4xMile or 3x2000 instead every once in a while or when I don't have an uninterrupted course.
I also run on hilly routes most of the time, except for CV which I usually do on a track. -
Another workout that Tinman prescribes sparingly, 1-2 times a month tops if not racing, is 10x1 minute @ 3k pace (starting around 5k to get warmed-up) with 30s rest.
Sometimes he follows it with 5-5x30s hills + 5-6x15s strides at 800m effort. -
Jfkdjhdj wrote:
Another workout that Tinman prescribes sparingly, 1-2 times a month tops if not racing, is 10x1 minute @ 3k pace (starting around 5k to get warmed-up) with 30s rest.
Sometimes he follows it with 5-5x30s hills + 5-6x15s strides at 800m effort.
Always tell you the important question.... Why? Why run 10 x 1 min at 5k down to 3k pace with 30 s rest 1-2 times per month if not racing??? Is there any physiological reason why to do it and it would be very good? No, there isn`t!
A lot of guessing here.....and I don`t like it. World class coaching should always be rooted in proven science and always have proven explanation.No place for guessing.
If you don`t have a 3k race coming soon there is no reason you should run 3 k pace. You don`t need it then. What you need instead is 5 k race pace and stay with that and improve the body`s ability to run more and more economically at that pace with the best individual rest after every rep.
-
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
Jfkdjhdj wrote:
Another workout that Tinman prescribes sparingly, 1-2 times a month tops if not racing, is 10x1 minute @ 3k pace (starting around 5k to get warmed-up) with 30s rest.
Sometimes he follows it with 5-5x30s hills + 5-6x15s strides at 800m effort.
Always tell you the important question.... Why? Why run 10 x 1 min at 5k down to 3k pace with 30 s rest 1-2 times per month if not racing??? Is there any physiological reason why to do it and it would be very good? No, there isn`t!
A lot of guessing here.....and I don`t like it. World class coaching should always be rooted in proven science and always have proven explanation.No place for guessing.
If you don`t have a 3k race coming soon there is no reason you should run 3 k pace. You don`t need it then. What you need instead is 5 k race pace and stay with that and improve the body`s ability to run more and more economically at that pace with the best individual rest after every rep.
Wrong. Get out of here. -
What you are suggesting goes completely against the Tinman training philosophy, and follows more a Brad Hudson-type of approach (with focus on race pace).
Tinman says that even for a focus on 5k, there shouldn't be any longer intervals done at a pace faster than CV (outside of maybe 3x 1k @ CV 3x 1k @ VO2MAX as peaking workout in racing season. He only introduces these parts of longer, faster intervals in the weeks 3-6 before the peak race).
If I was to train for a 5k with race pace intervals (like 5-6x 1k @5k or slightly faster), according to Tinman I would start breaking down after 4-6 weeks and not be able to develop myself as runner.
I have been having decent success with Tinman so far (from 20:30 5k to 17:00 5k in my first year of training), but always questioning if it's the optimal training approach for me (I'm very fast-twitch oriented), since it is soo different from most other programs. -
Hanzo wrote:
What you are suggesting goes completely against the Tinman training philosophy, and follows more a Brad Hudson-type of approach (with focus on race pace).
Tinman says that even for a focus on 5k, there shouldn't be any longer intervals done at a pace faster than CV (outside of maybe 3x 1k @ CV 3x 1k @ VO2MAX as peaking workout in racing season. He only introduces these parts of longer, faster intervals in the weeks 3-6 before the peak race).
If I was to train for a 5k with race pace intervals (like 5-6x 1k @5k or slightly faster), according to Tinman I would start breaking down after 4-6 weeks and not be able to develop myself as runner.
I have been having decent success with Tinman so far (from 20:30 5k to 17:00 5k in my first year of training), but always questioning if it's the optimal training approach for me (I'm very fast-twitch oriented), since it is soo different from most other programs.
If I get coached by Tinman, will one months subscription get me a months worth of workouts? Or longer? -
Hanzo wrote:
What you are suggesting goes completely against the Tinman training philosophy, and follows more a Brad Hudson-type of approach (with focus on race pace).
Tinman says that even for a focus on 5k, there shouldn't be any longer intervals done at a pace faster than CV (outside of maybe 3x 1k @ CV 3x 1k @ VO2MAX as peaking workout in racing season. He only introduces these parts of longer, faster intervals in the weeks 3-6 before the peak race).
If I was to train for a 5k with race pace intervals (like 5-6x 1k @5k or slightly faster), according to Tinman I would start breaking down after 4-6 weeks and not be able to develop myself as runner.
I have been having decent success with Tinman so far (from 20:30 5k to 17:00 5k in my first year of training), but always questioning if it's the optimal training approach for me (I'm very fast-twitch oriented), since it is soo different from most other programs.
How many mpw were you doing at 20:30 and how many now at 17? No need to spill Tinman's full bag of tricks, just wondering if mileage was also a big part of that drop in time? -
Hanzo wrote:
What you are suggesting goes completely against the Tinman training philosophy, and follows more a Brad Hudson-type of approach (with focus on race pace).
Tinman says that even for a focus on 5k, there shouldn't be any longer intervals done at a pace faster than CV (outside of maybe 3x 1k @ CV 3x 1k @ VO2MAX as peaking workout in racing season. He only introduces these parts of longer, faster intervals in the weeks 3-6 before the peak race).
If I was to train for a 5k with race pace intervals (like 5-6x 1k @5k or slightly faster), according to Tinman I would start breaking down after 4-6 weeks and not be able to develop myself as runner.
I have been having decent success with Tinman so far (from 20:30 5k to 17:00 5k in my first year of training), but always questioning if it's the optimal training approach for me (I'm very fast-twitch oriented), since it is soo different from most other programs.
One rule of thumb with training is if something is working, don't mess with it. 20:30 to 17:00 is by all means success. Don't mess with success; stick to the plan and re-adjust only in the case of a plateau or significant setback. "Shopping" for "better" ideas at this point is a fool's errand. This applies to any program. -
Hanzo wrote:
What you are suggesting goes completely against the Tinman training philosophy, and follows more a Brad Hudson-type of approach (with focus on race pace).
Tinman says that even for a focus on 5k, there shouldn't be any longer intervals done at a pace faster than CV (outside of maybe 3x 1k @ CV 3x 1k @ VO2MAX as peaking workout in racing season. He only introduces these parts of longer, faster intervals in the weeks 3-6 before the peak race).
If I was to train for a 5k with race pace intervals (like 5-6x 1k @5k or slightly faster), according to Tinman I would start breaking down after 4-6 weeks and not be able to develop myself as runner.
I have been having decent success with Tinman so far (from 20:30 5k to 17:00 5k in my first year of training), but always questioning if it's the optimal training approach for me (I'm very fast-twitch oriented), since it is soo different from most other programs.
I see you haven`t followed the superior coach and his specialties . My favorite VO2MAX interval is 20 x 400m and not 1000m:s . No one of my about 100 runners coached in 3 years have start breaking down on that. Instead, everyone has developed continuously.My own training system is a low mileage linear system and not like Tinman`s nor Hudson`s.
-
Tinman wrote:
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 was enjoying it until you started going on about increase the oxidative capacity of intermediate muscle fibers. Please, this is nonsense. When I started that mitochondria thread over 15 years ago and invited your comments, I was hoping for some good info, but none was forthcoming, just the usual dogma. Mitchondrial density is essential in every cell regardless of fitness/specificity, because it has a basic biological function: to process carbs and fats oxidatively. Malmo said back in early 2003 that people talk BS about mitochondria and he was right, they just do it to impress people and sound intelligent and insightful.
We improve because we get better at maintaining/optimizing muscle stiffness over longer periods, what Renato calls extension. That's all anyone really needs to know. So yes it's about skill and talent in an overused word, people only see the finished product when they speak about 'talent'
Your training philosophy is good but please drop the pseudoscience.
-
zohan wrote:
Hanzo wrote:
I have been having decent success with Tinman so far (from 20:30 5k to 17:00 5k in my first year of training), but always questioning if it's the optimal training approach for me (I'm very fast-twitch oriented), since it is soo different from most other programs.
How many mpw were you doing at 20:30 and how many now at 17? No need to spill Tinman's full bag of tricks, just wondering if mileage was also a big part of that drop in time?
20:30 was Dec 2017 at 5-10 mpw and a decent amount of cycling on a road bike.
18:55 was early May 2018 on 15 mpw and a lot of cycling, but also often sick/overtrained (training camp). This was my first race and I went out too hard at 3:30/k and died after a mile.
18:25 late May 2018, on 15 mpw with very good pacing.
During all this time, I was training 5x1k at close to max HR in 3:30-3:35 were I was done at the end and 8-10x 400s in 1:20-1:24 were I always puked at the end. Also threshold runs 5-8k in 4:00/k were I was sore for days afterwards. I needed 2-3 recovery days after everything I did. I improved just because I was new to the sport, was running more mileage and did a lot of work on the bike in addition.
31:10 8k in early June 2018. This made me very sad as I ran 32:00 8k in training twice, but I was burned out from the all-out races and all-out workouts/tempo runs (I was training after Daniels system during that time).
I also did lactate threshold testing (4 mmol) -
12/26 4:11.7
4/4 3:43.9
6/6 3:43.9
From December to April I improved significantly with minimal training. I guess this is normal in the early career of a runner. But a lot of the improvement must also be from the cycling, where I did 100+ mpw with long rides and some very high intensity ones. Then I stopped improving and started questioning the Daniels system.
After the last lactate test, I was told by the coach to "hold back" during 1k repeats and to remove any 400s. Since then I was able to improve massively, week after week I did the same Tinman CV workout and at same HR (around 170 at end of each repeat) I got faster by approx 1 sec/km every week. See for improvements: https://i.imgur.com/xxH65I5.png
This allowed me to finally get up to 45 miles/week and increase my days of running from 3 to 5-6. I ran a 5k in September in 17:38 and then a mile in 20F weather in 4:55, where I had around 17:15 shape maybe.
Then I took 10 days off (found out only later that Tinman recommends 5-7 max) and lost a majority of my fitness. Now working again with Tinman system to get back in shape and run mid 16s 5k next year.
Other facts: My easy day pace didn't improve much. It's still 8:00-9:00/mile, sometimes even slower because I'm beat up from races or the CV or high mileage for my level. I'm mostly limited by my legs. But my CV pace improved and I was racing quicker and quicker. My shuffle pace during reps is also very slow. But I feel great during the 200s even at 30s and in trainers, so I guess I'm naturally more FT.
-
An increase in muscle mitochondrial respiratory capacity (primarily due to an increase in mitochondrial content) is the single most important biochemical adaptation to training.
Or to put it another way: there is a reason that the IOC awarded John Holloszy the Olympic Medal in Sports Medicine (along with $200,000). -
A classic reference:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6460707 -
Andrew Coggan wrote:
An increase in muscle mitochondrial respiratory capacity (primarily due to an increase in mitochondrial content) is the single most important biochemical adaptation to training.
That's exactly the kind of nonsense I'm refering to. Opitimal mitochondrial content of any cell is essential for cell function. It has nothing to do with fitness, just good health. Think about it logically instead of repeating sill old dogma.
-
Logically, if you repeatedly subject a cell to increased demand for ATP, it should adapt to meet that increased demand.
That is, in fact, what happens not only in muscle fibers, but in, e.g., neurons.
In the case of muscle fibers, there may be up to a doubling of mitochondrial respiratory capacity with endurance training, such that the ability of type II fibers* to produce ATP aerobically can approach that of even endurance-trained type I fibers.
(*I won't differentiate between "intermediate" (i.e., type IIa) and "fast" fast-twitch (i.e., type IIx) fibers here, as endurance-trained individuals have very few IIx fibers, as they have all been converted to type IIa.)
As I stated previously, in terms of endurance exercise performance this is the single most important biochemical adaptation to training, as it has a large impact upon substrate selection/rate of carbohydrate depletion. That is true even individuals who do not differ in terms of overall aerobic capacity, i.e., VO2max:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1474063
-
Allow me to add that, although I don't understand what flat-earth trolls such as yourself hope to accomplish by repeatedly spewing nonsense, I thank you for the excuse to educate others about reality.
-
Andrew, I think I read about you having a formula that gives a stress rating for any specific workout or race? Is that true?
