Tinman Multi-Paced Training - Why Don’t More Coaches Use It?

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

This is good stuff. Tinman prescribes VO2MAX very sparingly and often specific to race distance.

1600m runner: 3x1k @CV + 6x400 @VO2MAX + 6x100 @400m

3200m runner: 3x1k @CV + 5x600 @VO2MAX + 4x200 @800m

5000m runner: 4x1k @CV + 4x800 @VO2MAX + 3x400 @mile

Those are typical Tinman CV sessions depending on the event. In racing season, he would do these 3-4 days before a race or a race simulation workout (which is mostly around VO2MAX pace as well).

Interesting.

It is almost like the CV and VO2 parts of the mixed pace workout are each roughly half of a normal "whole" workout. (e.g. 6-8x 1k for CV, or 6x800 / 5x1200 for VO2).

Is that a reasonable take? And is CV basically a bit quicker than 10k pace for a club runner? (32-36 10K)

mastersman wrote:

And is CV basically a bit quicker than 10k pace for a club runner? (32-36 10K)

He calls CV “half hour race speed.” There’s a calculator you can use, but basically a yes to your question.

hobbyJogger01 wrote:

mastersman wrote:

And is CV basically a bit quicker than 10k pace for a club runner? (32-36 10K)

He calls CV “half hour race speed.” There’s a calculator you can use, but basically a yes to your question.

More complete answer.

CV for a 34 min 10k’er is 5:26-5:34/mi. Vs. 5:28’ish would be 10k race pace.

mastersman wrote:

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

This is good stuff. Tinman prescribes VO2MAX very sparingly and often specific to race distance.

1600m runner: 3x1k @CV + 6x400 @VO2MAX + 6x100 @400m

3200m runner: 3x1k @CV + 5x600 @VO2MAX + 4x200 @800m

5000m runner: 4x1k @CV + 4x800 @VO2MAX + 3x400 @mile

Those are typical Tinman CV sessions depending on the event. In racing season, he would do these 3-4 days before a race or a race simulation workout (which is mostly around VO2MAX pace as well).

Interesting.

It is almost like the CV and VO2 parts of the mixed pace workout are each roughly half of a normal "whole" workout. (e.g. 6-8x 1k for CV, or 6x800 / 5x1200 for VO2).

Is that a reasonable take? And is CV basically a bit quicker than 10k pace for a club runner? (32-36 10K)

you can get his exact CV paces on his website. Adjust for heat and "10k time on that day", without taper in a heavy mileage week. It's about 5-10s faster than threshold and 0-5s faster than 10k pace.

He never prescribes VO2MAX longer than 800m. In practice, his schedule is like this after a season break, building for a 5k race:

1) t-16 easy mileage, build to an hour a day

2) t-14 introduce one CV fartlek (3 min on, 1 min off) or threshold (5-6x1k @threshold) workout & 1 tempo run at MP (4-5 miles)

3) t-10 change to a proper CV workout, 5-6x1k @ CV & extend tempo to 6 miles at MP

4) t-6 combine CV workout with VO2MAX. eliminate tempo, and replace it with a race (at 98%) or race simulation (mostly VO2MAX)

5) t-2 start tapering, if slow-twitch keep mileage, if fast-twitch reduce by 20%. eliminate long run the week of peak race. lower volume CV workout with double rest (4x1k, 400m rest) + 400-1200m TT (at 98% total effort, e.g. 800m in first half at 97% effort, second half at 100% effort)

He is extremely exact with his VO2MAX sessions, one session he had a rest of 47.94s between each rep (precise down to a 1/100th of a second), saying this is exactly equal to a 5k race effort done at 98%.

LateRunner Phil, are you coached by Tinman?

this system is dumb and failed. if you do that many things on one day, you won't get any specific results.

if you ran 20 miles every day and lifted upper body for 2 hours every day - you'll get a little faster and a little stronger but your body isn't going to know how the hell to adapt.

this is simple biology/physiology and it's honestly embarrassing tinman has such a minuscule understanding of it.

because it is dumb wrote:

this system is dumb and failed. if you do that many things on one day, you won't get any specific results.

if you ran 20 miles every day and lifted upper body for 2 hours every day - you'll get a little faster and a little stronger but your body isn't going to know how the hell to adapt.

this is simple biology/physiology and it's honestly embarrassing tinman has such a minuscule understanding of it.

I have heard this argument and by one very reputable physiologist that I know. But, it's theoretical and I'm not convinced either way.

I've been out of coaching for a couple decades so I'm late to this party. Any serious info would be appreciated:

Who/what is Tinman?

Is there a summary of his/her/its training somewhere?

Is this a well-known kind of training (in the way that Daniels's or Pfitzinger's is well known)? That is, is it part of the standard vocabulary now, or more an individual niche?

Again, thanks for any help!

Because treshold training is superior, and I mean REAL treshold training, using a lactate meter to measure intensity.

That is what the Ingebrigtsens are doing, that is what the Kenyans are doing. Exception is that the kenyans do it by feel (way easier at altitude, they have been tested and often run at treshold without knowing its "treshold").

Why not copy the ingebrigtsens? Its not all out gung ho Alan Webb training, its not the type of training you get burnt out by doing. Its controlled, easy, predictable and produces great results.

The Americans are lagging behind.

Returning coach wrote:

I've been out of coaching for a couple decades so I'm late to this party. Any serious info would be appreciated:

Who/what is Tinman?

Is there a summary of his/her/its training somewhere?

Is this a well-known kind of training (in the way that Daniels's or Pfitzinger's is well known)? That is, is it part of the standard vocabulary now, or more an individual niche?

Again, thanks for any help!

Welcome back to coaching! A simple google search of Tinman or Tom "Tinman" Schwartz will get you a plethora of information on his training techniques. I know there's a couple of Final Surge podcasts with Tinman that are helpful.

Tresholdfftw wrote:

Because treshold training is superior, and I mean REAL treshold training, using a lactate meter to measure intensity.

That is what the Ingebrigtsens are doing, that is what the Kenyans are doing. Exception is that the kenyans do it by feel (way easier at altitude, they have been tested and often run at treshold without knowing its "treshold").

Why not copy the ingebrigtsens? Its not all out gung ho Alan Webb training, its not the type of training you get burnt out by doing. Its controlled, easy, predictable and produces great results.

The Americans are lagging behind.

It's spelled threshold.

He is Irish.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

He is extremely exact with his VO2MAX sessions, one session he had a rest of 47.94s between each rep (precise down to a 1/100th of a second), saying this is exactly equal to a 5k race effort done at 98%.

This is just weird. I mean why? Just why?

I mean for freaks sake 47.94 seconds rest?? It's 48 seconds, sheeeaaatt call it 50 or do your k reps in 3.10 or whatever and run em every 4 minutes.

Precise numbers are irrelevant in interval training. Even when doing specific pace, there is still some +/- involved.

what the?? wrote:

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

He is extremely exact with his VO2MAX sessions, one session he had a rest of 47.94s between each rep (precise down to a 1/100th of a second), saying this is exactly equal to a 5k race effort done at 98%.

This is just weird. I mean why? Just why?

I mean for freaks sake 47.94 seconds rest?? It's 48 seconds, sheeeaaatt call it 50 or do your k reps in 3.10 or whatever and run em every 4 minutes.

Precise numbers are irrelevant in interval training. Even when doing specific pace, there is still some +/- involved.

He prescribed the same for his elite runners. In a 3200m he wanted some of his runners to pace Drew and prepare him for a win and great time. He wanted them to go exactly 63.13s/lap, so 4:14 per mile. He said he didn't care if it was 62 or 63.5 at the first 400, but at the 800m they had to be exactly at 2:06 so Drew can win the race later. After 800m they switched pacers but kept the pace at 63 low. He won exactly in 8:25, so the precise math worked out.

He already got a reputation for predicting race times down to the 10th of a second. He claims it's all based on math and science.

After he was asked if 63.1s wouldn't have been good enough, he said that he is a precision guy and even in workout he gets extremely precise. One workout he prescribed was 5x1k in 3:00, 2:58, 2:56, 2:54, 2:52 with 200m jog in 1:13, because he got it "mathematically figured out". His whole CV is based on math, that this is the optimal pace to train at week after week. He also recently started using a Stryd power meter, to analyze ground contact time, biomechanics and impact of hills, wind and hot temperatures and make sure Drew and his other athletes are training optimally all the time.

He's a control freak. We all have onboard computers to make these decisions for ourselves. Our nervous systems. Learning how to use them is what it's all about.

Returning coach wrote:

I've been out of coaching for a couple decades so I'm late to this party. Any serious info would be appreciated:

Who/what is Tinman?

Is there a summary of his/her/its training somewhere?

Is this a well-known kind of training (in the way that Daniels's or Pfitzinger's is well known)? That is, is it part of the standard vocabulary now, or more an individual niche?

Again, thanks for any help!

Tom “Tinman” Schwartz is a coach who gets a highly disproportionate amount of talk and praise on here given his experience and results. He coaches the youngster Drew Hunter and a bunch of marginal pros. I don’t know the guy, I don’t dislike him, and I don’t have an opinion on his training, but I do know somebody(ies?) keep going out of their way to talk him up on here.

Back in the bad old days when nobody had heard of VO2 max or CV pace a workout including all these things ould be a regular feature of a lot of athlete's training; called a fartlek back in the mists of time!

Loads of coaches have strides/sprints at the end of a hard session, from Igloi onwards. All about running fast when knackered!

Tinman likes to sound smart. That´s what it´s all about.

In performance athletics, with everyone looking for an edge, it's easy to latch on "the answer" for improving. The facts are, that if his coaching methods weren't founded in best practices they wouldn't produce consistent results and improvement with minimal setbacks.

Therefore, he has not only succeeded in improving the athletes he works with but has also branded important fundamental training principles in a novel way that has garnered a lot of attention, which benefits both him and his athletes. It's honestly encouraging to see how transparent the group is with training, and maybe more people should try to emulate and learn why it's working, before voicing criticism that the training isn't different from other coaches. The visibility component is important. If the best coaches are applying similar principles, isn't that a good thing that shows maybe there are some best practices you can follow? Many coaches have egos and are secretive about "their system" when really it's all based on the same natural and physical principles.

Adaptation and maintenance aren't novel concepts but it's amazing how often they are ignored in training. A specific stimulus will yield a specific adaptation given that the stimulus is progressively harder and there is proper recovery and nutrition. Why so many coaches and athletes ignore the recovery component of training is truly baffling, as the result is dampening adaptation and working overall harder when they could improve more efficiently doing less and getting the most improvement from their quality sessions that most contribute to performance.

Because of specificity, each type of training stimulus starts at a beginner level, improves quickly at first, and then becomes more difficult to keep progressing (minimum effective dose / diminishing returns). Is your athlete not responding to the same training or improving at the same rate? Do something else. Maintain it and work on something else, there's lots to work on. If they maintain the same fitness level across their developed skillset and improve new ones they will improve overall.

Once you've built a skill, it's easy to do a little of it to maintain your progress without detraining, but you still have to do it occasionally if it's not in a stage of building. Multi-paced sessions are one of the best ways to maintain what you've built in a higher volume way without taxing any one system too much, and that's why they work so well, especially if your goal is to have everything firing and not be too tired for a key race. Covering a wide base of skills with steep initial improvement curves drives holistic improvements, and usually produces more well rounded healthy athletes.

Hammering specific race pace the Tuesday of a Saturday race, even if it's for a confidence boost, is often not the best move and can leave you flat in other areas that make up the final product, and not fully recovered in the main contributing system to the event.

There are a lot of skills that contribute to track and field performance, and there isn't enough time to work on them all in a training week, or a season, or a year. There are many ways that you can go about the process of developing and maintaining the total skill set necessary for a given event, but it's highly individualized, which is why you see a lot of different training methods achieving or not achieving similar results. It's also why you see improvements when an athlete moves to a different coach, or goes to college. It's often because they work on new skills they needed, on top of maintaining what they've built, and find the confidence to make a jump. It's also not hard however, to just incorporate that variability in the first place.

If you want to be a better coach, just do your homework. Learn the basic physiology, learn the basic biomechanics, learn how to best communicate with other people so you can explain the why's and have good reasons behind your plan. That builds trust, confidence and buy-in. Be creative and open minded in your approach, because people are different and one system won't work for everyone, and make sure the athletes are treated as human beings first.

There isn't a magic answer, but you always get results doing the fundamentals well.