What happened to Jmar's daily blog?
What happened to Jmar's daily blog?
Actual good coach here wrote:
But anyway... I digress... those 3 stooges... they're even worse than Tinman. Only an idiot would say "everyone responds different." Seriously, wake me up when those 3(4) idiots achieve something in coaching. I'd be happy with having athletes in Tokyo to start with.
Was this meant to be satire but it didn't translate well?
I'd like to hear an explanation why you think the statement is false.
...That's sort of the point. Tinman didn't really invent anything new. He built a system based on observations of successful training in the past. He's said himself that all good elite runners do CV in some form or another--he's just emphasizing it. Likewise, Shorter once said something to the effect of 2 workouts a week and a long run and the rest is window dressing. That's Tinman's system. He didn't create it--he observed successful runners and implemented it. As for inventing CV, he also doesn't claim to have invented it--the runners he coached did, when they would run that pace instead of LT and said it felt better.
Tinman learned from observation, and those claiming that he's pretending to have discovered a new running philosophy are off base. It's intentionally not new. But in any case, contrast this--learning from observation--to Magness and Marcus--criticizing and tearing down every element of training that they can find. Say, their last two podcasts: there are no magic training intensities, workouts don't matter as much as you think. Past episodes include "long runs suck," (tell that to Kipchoge) "threshold training is bs," (tell that to the Ingebrigstens) and scientific training is bs (someone better alert Magness).
The crazy thing is that Magness is a good coach. I'm not ripping his coaching. I just don't understand his MO.
So, what do you expect, someone saying that if you do 10x400 in 60 with 1 min rest you are guaranteed to run sub 4 mile? It does not work this way. There are no magic workouts nor specific formula how certain stimulus should be prescribed. You can do tempo type training by doing Daniels' 20 min tempo, by doing cruise intervals, by doing 1k repeats at around HM pace with 30-60 sec rest, by doing 400 meter repeats at 10k pace probably around 60 sec rest, hell you can do 100 on/off to get tempo like stimulus.
If you are expecting something written in black on white, then you have very limited understanding on how training and adaptation to it works. I enjoy most of their podcasts very much although Marcus can be annoying at times. His twitter feed is definitwly hard to digest.
I dont think anyone should agree with everything or even bigger part of what they say or beliefs they express, however, they question a lot of things which in my view is great for improving your understanding.
As a coach, however, I feel that having over analytical coach is somewhat undesirable sometimes for some or majority athletes. I think most athletes do and would possibly perform better if they were to believe that their coach has the secret training that is the best. Not that there is such, but athletes' belief will make it one. Here one can say that Tinman's often categorical and "I know the BEST" way of communication is somwthing that positively influences his athletes through them believing in it since he is very much believer in himself.
This is warrsnting a debate - how much athletes belief in having thw optimal training is impacting the results or how much doubts impact. For coaches out there, I think it is always worth to have athlwte informed of objectives of any specific session or cycle of sessions, however, there should be a confidence from your side that the work athlete is putting in is the optimal work, so that athlete would share thw same confidence.
Sdcard wrote:
Anyone listen to M&M latest podcast (87) where they talk about how there are no magic training intensities? They mention CV by name, which was made popular by Tinman. Magness made the argument that “CV” would have different effects on different runners, and everyone responds different. I took it as that he also said there were no ways to validate Tinmans claims about type IIa fibers being conditioned the most by CV workouts.
Tinman, Magness, or Marcus would you care to chime in? Both camps make sense
They are wrong though. Much evidence point to lactate treshold training as being pretty magical.
Ingebrigtsens success is because of it, they do 4 lactate treshold interval workouts every week.
Marius Bakken did the same.
Buraas (13.06) the same.
Bakken testing the Kenyans came to the conclusion that they basically did all treshold training, just by feel (easier at altiude) than by testing, like the scandinavians do with lactate meters.
It absolutely BAFFLES me that american colleges doesn't use lactate meters more. Interesting to see if americans will start to catch on to the Ingebrigtsens training. Its simple, avoids burnout and overtraining and is proven to give great results.
No they aren't wrong. LT is just another training pace. The idea that it is was hyped up way back in 1984, it was just a fad then, so why do you think anything has changed?
Rigarigrig wrote:
...That's sort of the point. Tinman didn't really invent anything new. He built a system based on observations of successful training in the past. He's said himself that all good elite runners do CV in some form or another--he's just emphasizing it.
So what's critical about it? It's a silly term and Tinman is making gradiose claims about its efficacy as a training stimulus. They are right to highlight this nonsense.
itisthatbad wrote:
What happened to Jmar's daily blog?
M&M both talk a big game but cannot back it up. Marcus claimed his blog and the Daily Workout would go on forever. He lasted a few months. They also mentioned various giveaways on their show that didn’t happen.
As previously mentioned, the podcast totally misses the mark. Tinman will be the first to agree that there is not one magical pace or intensity. The reason Tinman’s training works so well is the blending of various intensities and speeds along with the balance of moderate volume and adequate recovery. M&M seem childish and bitter in the podcast. They’re incredibly pretentious. They say that they don’t have it all figured out but they sure act like hot stuff.
Rhnvfjndh wrote:
itisthatbad wrote:
What happened to Jmar's daily blog?
M&M both talk a big game but cannot back it up. Marcus claimed his blog and the Daily Workout would go on forever. He lasted a few months. They also mentioned various giveaways on their show that didn’t happen.
As previously mentioned, the podcast totally misses the mark. Tinman will be the first to agree that there is not one magical pace or intensity. The reason Tinman’s training works so well is the blending of various intensities and speeds along with the balance of moderate volume and adequate recovery. M&M seem childish and bitter in the podcast. They’re incredibly pretentious. They say that they don’t have it all figured out but they sure act like hot stuff.
I am with you. I find it hard to understand the thesis of the podcast is that CV pace is all that is used in a system and it is magic. If you look at Tinman's training programs for his athletes, his workouts rarely have less than 3 paces in one workout.
It is hard to stomach the constant criticism they have around any and every training system or workout, but never really talk about what a better version of it looks like. I guess it's just "giving the people what they want."
Of course, Tinman doesn't use just CV. What M&M argued was that VO2max, CV, LT, don't do anything special. They aren't bad or good, they are just different tools. Magness makes the argument that it's impossible to zero in and say between these 5 seconds per mile, you'll get mitochondria adaptations of fast twitch fibers, or whatever you want to say, because that level of accuracy is impossible on the individual level.
This is the correct answer.
ManBearCoach wrote:
Of course, Tinman doesn't use just CV. What M&M argued was that VO2max, CV, LT, don't do anything special. They aren't bad or good, they are just different tools. Magness makes the argument that it's impossible to zero in and say between these 5 seconds per mile, you'll get mitochondria adaptations of fast twitch fibers, or whatever you want to say, because that level of accuracy is impossible on the individual level.
This is the correct answer.
Agreed on this.
I think everyone missed the mark on this thread. Magness frequently makes the argument that we put too much emphasis on exact training paces, as if we can predict what every one does and when we are one that pace.
The podcast isn't a riff against Tinman or Daniels or anyone else. It's just a different system of thought. A different way of looking at training.
This is from a while ago, but it's the same sort of conceptualization on VO2max workouts. This is what Magness argues. It has nothing to do with Tinman or CV or what not:
https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2012/06/physiological-model-of-training-why-i.html?v=7516fd43adaaI believe the last graph sums Magness point up:
https://i1.wp.com/www.scienceofrunning.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/vollaard.png?w=750If you read what tinman wrote when he was a regular poster here you would have seen that a common theme was how all great coaches had stolen their training ideas from him
facts matter wrote:
The reality is that none of those coaches have contributed anything original to exercise physiology or training theory. Their training is just recycled concepts from many decades ago.
They didn't write books and start podcasts to advance the science of training, they did it only so they can market themselves better (and make a little extra money).
End of discussion.
First, making a running coaching podcast is no effective way to make money. I think it's pretty clear that they genuinely want to help other coaches get better at coaching. Personally I had an absolute awful coach in high school but still managed to get recruited to a D1 program where I then got completely incorrectly coached (granted I was a weird case coming from such an awful high school program but he was the one who recruited me...). If either of my coaches had been athlete-first and truly about customizing training the way M&M preach, then I would've had a much much better scholastic career. The more they can spread the word to get coaches better at coaching, the better.
Second, they aren't about creating models that contribute to exercise physiology or training theory (though Magness has of course done some science). They've learned all that stuff and now they coach. What all the models have missed, and this comes up in this exact topic of CV pace and magic training paces, is that there is far too much individual variation for them to work as well as the average runner hopes.
Programs can recruit athletes who fit the program's model and they can apply the model to all the athletes there and then not care about the athletes who wash out. And then you end up with a program with a bunch of successful athletes all running the same model. It does not mean that model works for everyone. It just means that that program was able to put a team together filled with people for whom that model works.
The vast majority of coaches do not have that luxury. And even the ones who supposedly do, they are ruining some athlete's careers, or at least wasting some of their prime years, by making them attempt something that doesn't fit them.
So a good coach who has someone come to them asking for help to become a better runner, the first thing to do is to get to know the runner, the individual, and then begin to see what known models this runner fits in. That's coaching.
I've listened to about half of the M&M podcasts and it is pretty frustrating how much they contradict themselves. But really they are just warning against going too far in the wrong direction in either way, and knowing when to recognize when an athlete needs prodding in one direction or another. So they aren't really contradicting themselves. But it's up to you as an athlete or a coach to figure out where you're at and what adjustments you need.
And even beyond what works for an individual athlete in general, it is amazing how much people think they can target a specific pace, while still admitting that they can have good days and bad days, that under a little harder training or easier training they'll go a little faster or slower, that the conditions can slow them down or speed them up and they don't know by exactly how much (wind, temperature, humidity, altitude, surface, shoes). And yet they swear that their pacing precision is good enough that by going 10 seconds / mile faster they are doing something so much more effective. It's a joke. You can speed up or slow down an athlete by much more than 10 seconds/mile by twisting these extraneous knobs. Also, for all the people running workouts in groups, the likelihood that the pace you ran together was perfect for all of you that day is super low.
Once you get to MP and work your way down to HM pace, 15k pace, 10k pace, 5k pace, 3k pace, 1500 pace, 800 pace, 400 pace and sprint, you are on a continuum and there's no way to know if you are specifically in the perfect zone on that day. Of course you should still target particular efforts but it is amazing to me how much people think they are performing some exact science and doing something great by going 5-10 seconds faster or slower. That is such a small detail that plays an extremely minor role in who is going to win a race. Its importance is definitely overrated.
Disagree...I like the Marcus and magness podcast...they offer a way more science based podcast on running and coaching and intertwine it with sports psychology. What I took away from the there's no magical intensity podcast was they were just pointing out different perspectives and to not get too hung up on any one intensity. I thought they made great points. Did you listen to the podcast? Did you listen to it with an open mind?
This has nothing to do so much with John or Steve but some of you have to agree Tinman on these message boards is being hailed....it's like LR posters are minions and since the great fall of the suspected coaching doper Canova everyone is looking for a new coaching leader.
Very well said. Completely agree.
Sdcard wrote:
Anyone listen to M&M latest podcast (87) where they talk about how there are no magic training intensities? They mention CV by name, which was made popular by Tinman. Magness made the argument that “CV” would have different effects on different runners, and everyone responds different. I took it as that he also said there were no ways to validate Tinmans claims about type IIa fibers being conditioned the most by CV workouts.
Tinman, Magness, or Marcus would you care to chime in? Both camps make sense
Magness is smart and well researched (which appealed to Salazar for a time), but he always seems a touch bitter, vindictive, if not jealous, maybe because he never quite managed to break a 4min mile.
I side with Tinman, even if the physiological details may someday be proven incorrect, his end result is success.
Marcus has been saying some interesting things lately -- I recall recent statements that coaches should work for nothing in the sport and that athletes have it pretty good with sponsorships even though USATF limits things like logo sizes and how much you can rep your sponsor if you make a national team and aren't with Nike. I'm not surprised about the Tinman comments but it seems like a better conversation where you can talk about training philosophy. I still disagree with him but I feel like some people try to act like there's a running authority when sometimes different things work for different people. You can probably put together 50 different marathon plans to get to a similar result.
That's not far from right. Add in how he bounced around in college, kind of indicative of instability on some level. Maybe has regrets as an athlete that he initially chose Rice, certainly a fine school, over other opportunities and then after a gap wound up at Houston which is not exactly a mecca or hotbed in distance terms. To me, that suggests he views himself as someone who can cerebrally lead a situation up from where it exists, despite lacking the charisma of those who notably can do such a thing. Like he can think up a plan that will do it without the ability to connect like someone such as Joe Vigil, Vin Lananna, Jerry Schumacher and with few other resources. He reminds me in certain ways of Mark Wetmore, and just remember Wetmore coached at Seton Hall previously and compared with Boulder, South Orange appeals to distance recruits about as well as Houston does. Ditto Martin Smith. You can be the smartest guy in the room, yet if it doesn't come across easily that you care deeply then you might find yourself at a disadvantage. This isn't to say that Wetmore, Magness, Smith, or whomever doesn't care, just that there's some personal stiffness or seeming aloofness that will set a ceiling depending on surrounding circumstances (location, budget/funding, etc.)
Right, confidence inspires and leads to good results much more often over the alternative. And Tinman didn't build the recent notable success somewhere like Idaho Falls or Laramie. Like so many others, such as the aforementioned Mark Wetmore, he benefited in a not insignificant way from centering the group in Boulder, even if it was initially Drew Hunter's choice.
This is an interesting discussion and I think shows the complexity of figuring out who can or can't coach. I'd have to do some research but all three of these guys have coached national champs. Does that make them successful coaches?
Well, if they were one off successes, maybe we discount that? Who has had the most athletes at the international level? Magness seems to lead that followed by Tinman and Marcus in the rear. Does that mean Magness and Tinman are better than Marcus? No.
It speaks to how dumb it is to say this coach has had success. For every athlete we sit here and say, look have success, the other coach can point to it.
We already saw it in this thread. Someone says, Tinman will have multiple people make worlds/olympics. Then someone points out that Magness already has had multiple athletes make worlds/olympics. We could point to Brogan Austin having success, then we could say Marcus has Eleanor Fulton running quickly, or Magness has had Barraza on a role.
They've all had failures as well. W
None of that means that any of these guys are better or worse coaches than the other. Wetmore isn't Wetmore without opportunity to coach at CU.
All have had success.
Well, you think Salazar is so smart, and it is true that his absolutely elite athletes have improved under his coaching. However, he jumps into all kinds of fashionable ideas to get an edge and that sometimes means that he is actually not helping his athletes but rather harming them. Here are several recent examples of mistakes he made: 1) he had Kejelcha running a fast workout just two days before Millrose's WR attempt to get an edge by practicing on a banked track in Boise, thus robbing Kejelcha of fresh legs and causing him substantially more travel time before the race (he should have had him do this workout with sufficient time to recover before Millrose--he had all winter to get him to a banked track); 2) he had his athletes, certainly Rupp and Farah, doing cryobaths for recovery when studies show that icing after exercise lengthens recovery time and annuls the positive effect on muscle regeneration of the workouts (don't jump on every fad that comes along; think about it and try it out before doing it--I observed in my own recoveries that I would always feel stiffer and less ready for running the day after icing); 3) he had Ritz get achilles tendon sheath surgery after some achilles issues following his 12:56/27:22/60:00 bronze year, but the heel got infected and he lost much more time (he should have opted for continued physical therapy and specifically the slow heel drops).