I will keep using Daniels' plans until Tinman publishes something at least half as informative as The Running Formula

Some probably just want to see results without concern for the science or philosophy behind the program...

The vast majority of successful coaches are just unpublished charismatic former successful college athletes.

Might be interesting to see what daniels has to say in his biography

Hog wrote:

Might be interesting to see what daniels has to say in his biography

When's it coming out?

Your viewpoint is spot on. What level do you coach at?

Wolf's Bane wrote:

For the amount he's charging, he's got to be doing more than emailing a training plan. So even though a book will get him more, he's not interested.

It's on finalsurge.com. And that's about it.

not opposed to it wrote:

Forget about which philosophy is superior for a minute.

Daniels: His philosophy is published in 3 editions and broken down into easy-to-understand concepts, and he then offers sample training plans that have applied those principles. The runner knows exactly what to do and why they are doing it, and he/she has the freedom to tweak it.

Schwartz: His philosophy is available thru second-hand adaptations on bootleg PDFs. The runner, out of frustration, runs 5x1k @9k pace + 200m sprints for a few weeks, figuring the principles are something like Daniels' but never really knowing for sure, then does something else for variety.

I really want to like Tinman, but I need something more concrete than following Drew Hunter on Insta.

There is more to read from Tinman than anyone out there.

Go to therunzone.com and use the advanced search. You can search by author and find every post he has ever written on that site. Add that to his old Letsrun posts and you can read about his training for months. No book needed.

Hog wrote:

Might be interesting to see what daniels has to say in his biography

He spoke about it briefly to a small group of us in December, and shared a few details and hints about it... I am very much looking forward reading it.

petrerten wrote:

Your viewpoint is spot on. What level do you coach at?

... at the risk of hijacking the thread's primary topic, I will give a very brief summary.

I'm no rockstar... a nobody special kind of guy that will whisper little nuggets of knowledge while passing by at the local track meets or road races. Coaching has never been about the money for me, so I'm just as comfortable offering assistance for free as I am setting up a seasonal commitment (I do both). I do have a competitive background to compliment my graduate degree in exercise physiology/sport psychology, but that's another story.

I've been coaching endurance athletes (not just runners) since the mid-90's... I coach competitive youth, post collegiate, late bloomers, on up to masters athletes. Privately now, and briefly through the local public school system (middle and high school). Successes have been on the local, state, and regional levels (but noting elite). I live in a rural community with a population of less than 40 thousand, and the majority is transient due to the local university. Prior to starting a family in the late 90's, I was deeply invested in teaching and working at the Washington State University Human Performance Lab (which has since been relocated to a satellite campus in Spokane, WA). The restructuring at WSU, the new family, and starting my own fitness facility (a small local gym) kept all of my focus at the local level (by choice) for the past 20 years. Family comes first! I hope to return to teaching at the undergraduate level in 2020 as most of my kids are moving on to college or entering their later HS years. I imagine once I'm back on campus, I will reach out as a volunteer assistant with the university (which may lead to other opportunities). I'm still undecided about how I feel about this trend in online coaching. Nothing beats one on one communication and objective observation when coaching, so I'm still trying to come to terms with it. I think it would be nice to work with a larger population, so for now, I'll keep an open mind and see what happens.

And with that experience, Daniels has been your "weapon of choice" when it comes to training?

I would recommend going the volunteer route if you can. Especially if it happens to be at WSU or a larger university. Most people I know started that way and it quickly moved into full-time positions elsewhere. Most programs just want a year or two as a volunteer and have you "pay your dues" at this level. I started as a volunteer myself before I "officially" started coaching at the D1 level. That being said, simpler methods like Daniels I believe are very effective for younger athletes. You have a lot more experience with the youth level and I think that works well for them as a baseline. I mean, they are basically starting at the baseline of their careers themselves. I have only ever worked with D1 athletes or post-collegiates. So my coaching view is skewed. My wife is a head track/xc coach at a large HS. She has 45 girls on her XC team and over 100 female HS athletes for track. Coaching is extremely different for her than it is for me. This obviously calls on a different approach to training as well.

I know you just finished the Magness book and I think you will actually come to like it. You mentioned being big on modifying a training program to fit the needs of the athletes. A lot of Magness' book spends time talking about how certain workouts are better for certain athletes depending on their fiber composition. Talks a lot about muscle tension and the role it plays in prepping your athletes for big races and how the ways to manipulate that depends on the type of athlete you have. Personally, I hated reading the book. Something about the way he writes... I don't know. Can't put my finger on it. That is something Daniels had going for him. He just seemed more enjoyable to read for me.

Unfortunately, you've already demonstrated in a very public way that you have very poor judgment. Magness is much more accomplished than you as a coach (and athlete), equally educated and experienced, and much more successful as a writer. Slamming him as a know-nothing poseur was a remarkably poor choice on your part. The sad thing is that much of your approach to training could have been written by Magness himself.

Magness may be a good coach (I'm not in position to judge), but he is a really sloppy writer, and I wouldn't trust anything he's put together unless he had a very strong ghost writer. His mind is connective and has nuggets of insight and connections, but it is very disorganized.

Have you seen his masters thesis? It's linked somewhere online. Read that and you will have a sense of how carelessly he thinks.

This is not a comment on Magness's character or a slam on him personally. I'm not necessarily convinced that Daniels has the best approach, but his book is much, much more carefully put together and coherently thought through than anything Steve Magness could produce.

So... I could read an actual book (w/calculations and plans) or I could try to piece together random blog posts from a number of different forums...

deleuze wrote:

Magness may be a good coach (I'm not in position to judge), but he is a really sloppy writer, and I wouldn't trust anything he's put together unless he had a very strong ghost writer. His mind is connective and has nuggets of insight and connections, but it is very disorganized.

Have you seen his masters thesis? It's linked somewhere online. Read that and you will have a sense of how carelessly he thinks.

This is not a comment on Magness's character or a slam on him personally. I'm not necessarily convinced that Daniels has the best approach, but his book is much, much more carefully put together and coherently thought through than anything Steve Magness could produce.

^^^

LOL!!

And with that experience, Daniels has been your "weapon of choice" when it comes to training?

Before I answer this, I feel it is important to detail my perception on coaching books in general. I’ve always avoided the temptation to perceive coaching books, and online resources as some form of recipe or cookbook for success. To me, coaching books are a way of expression, and intended to function as a means of streamlining the flow of information from the “lab” (literally or metaphorically) to the general population. In other words, the book is an expression of concept(s) for which we draw our inspiration from, and the specific workouts or training phases are indiscriminate examples of those concepts… not (automatically) a verbatim recipe or prescription. The functional objective of the book, as I see it, is providing us with a means to mimic the overall concept(s) while organizing a “best fit” training model around each individual athlete’s needs.

In this way, I believe a publication or book can act as a means of empowerment for the athlete(s) being trained under the conceptual system of choice. By providing useful insight and knowledge about where the coach is drawing his/her inspiration from, the book can act as a conduit of confidence and empowerment for a more specific and efficient exchange of information between coach and athlete. I support and encourage each individual to be fully informed and engaged with the training concepts and proposed process before establishing new goals or renewing the old ones. A full understanding of why and how we are doing the training is the key to sustainable adaptation, and overall success. I believe the coaching books can help both coach and athlete objectively define the principal concepts and purpose of each individual training program, and I believe having a purpose leads to practical application, and practical application leads to sustainable performance, and sustainable performance leads to success.

So, to finally answer your question, yes… I tend to (initially) draw my inspiration from the concepts outlined in Daniels’ published works (not just his latest books, but all of his publications). I have been reading Daniels et al long before he published the first edition of Daniels Running Formula in 1998… so when it was first published, I was already working from a position of familiarity with the science and his conceptual training principles. That said, Daniels is far from my only source of inspiration… and I believe this unbound process diminishes the dependency on any one training philosophy and avoids a state of inflexible attachment to a system that may not be suited to each individual.

Hopefully this answered your question.

pay day wrote:

Tinman wants $2,000 a year to personally(?) coach you online. I wonder if he would make more $$$ bu publishing a book?

JS is a much better choice. Between 50- 80 bucks per month . And he has much better results all over. He even coach sprinters at world class.

ghost_coach wrote:

Daniels is the coach of the coaches! The success of his programs are literally everywhere. Daniels isn't an attention whore looking to over-hype a system based on someone else's work (like Steve Magness, possibly Tom as well). Though no other US based coach out there (with the exception of Lydiard perhaps) would have a legitimate claim to do so.

Mate, Lydiard was an Antipodean not an American.

Thanks for sharing your perspective, and for the ‘real world’ advice about working with a D1 institutions. The WSU coaching staff are somewhat familiar with me already, as they regularly see me coaching on or around campus and attending local meets. I keep a pretty low profile while they’re coaching because I don’t want to disrupt their own practices (e.g. Ghost Coach). Occasionally, we’ll strike up a conversation. I wouldn’t go so far as to say we’ve formally gotten to know each other though.

I know you just finished the Magness book and I think you will actually come to like it. You mentioned being big on modifying a training program to fit the needs of the athletes. A lot of Magness' book spends time talking about how certain workouts are better for certain athletes depending on their fiber composition. Talks a lot about muscle tension and the role it plays in prepping your athletes for big races and how the ways to manipulate that depends on the type of athlete you have. Personally, I hated reading the book. Something about the way he writes... I don't know. Can't put my finger on it. That is something Daniels had going for him. He just seemed more enjoyable to read for me.

It's not just you… I don’t enjoy reading Magness’ writing either and to be brutally honest, this is very likely the genesis of my “attacks” against his coaching style.

As far as the individual training approach based on fiber type ratios, I agree with the need to consider this moving forward, and it’s nice to see more writing on the subject. The focus on muscle tension is interesting and did catch my attention. I don’t have the publications on file at the moment, but I do remember studying this in the mid-90’s (during graduate school). Back then, the literature confirmed the transformative nature of specific fiber types following various training modalities, but the overall conclusion was that the changes failed to result in any “significant” changes to overall performance. Essentially it was an interesting observation, but functionally irrelevant to performance. I believe this is a strong example of where lab science and field work (practical application) fail to exchange information and ideas in a useful way. There’s more to this, I believe, and I plan to revisit this with increased scrutiny moving forward. I’ll take a look at my resources and see if I can find more details.