LateRunnerPhil - Peaking with Tinman Training for a 5k PR (6 weeks) / Training Log

Such overreactions to one workout.

There's no way for a rapidly improving athlete to know precise workout paces.

There's no need for perfect workout paces anyway. As long as overtraining is being avoided, improvements will keep coming. So not only is exact science extra difficult to apply to a beginner, it is the least necessary it will ever be. Newb gains will come anyway.

If he felt it was not a hard effort, then it's no problem. The only thing to do is see if future workouts and races aren't as good as that workout, then in retrospect the training was wrong. Since he is a relative beginner with rapidly changing fitness, the only thing to do is keep an eye on it.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

CV is an effort for me - if I would be doing the reps too fast, I wouldn't be able to have just 200m rest and totally recover (120-130 HR).

Not here to bash, as you are free to do what you want. I too have listened to every Tinman interview I can find, followed his athletes online and learned whatever else I can.

I'll say this, CV is not "an effort" according to Tinman. It's a calculation and an exact pace. He calculates down to the second what his athletes should be doing in races and workouts as well. From what little I know, I know that the basis of a lot of his training is not a guess, or an effort... it's very specific. And using his calculator is as close as someone not being trained by him can get.

UA Runner wrote:

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

CV is an effort for me - if I would be doing the reps too fast, I wouldn't be able to have just 200m rest and totally recover (120-130 HR).

Not here to bash, as you are free to do what you want. I too have listened to every Tinman interview I can find, followed his athletes online and learned whatever else I can.

I'll say this, CV is not "an effort" according to Tinman. It's a calculation and an exact pace. He calculates down to the second what his athletes should be doing in races and workouts as well. From what little I know, I know that the basis of a lot of his training is not a guess, or an effort... it's very specific. And using his calculator is as close as someone not being trained by him can get.

No, any form of critique/discussion is welcome! We are all here to learn things and find ways to optimize our training.

You are right that Tinman gives his athletes exact paces - but he takes into consideration: fatigue, workload that caused the fatigue, stress, weather, surface, clothing and shoes. He also stresses repeatedly that if you raced a 15 flat 5k, you probably shouldn't use that time to get your CV paces, as on a training day, without taper, without racing flats you might only be able to do a 15:25 5k. Then he wants you to do CV based on that 15:25 time.

The important thing about CV pace is it should be the pace you can hold for 30-35 min on that specific day. So if you have done many CV workouts, you know what it feels like. I've done around 50 CV workouts in the last 60 weeks and am pretty familiar with the effort. Could I run 3:20/k pace for 30-35 min? Highly unlikely, and that's the main reason people criticize my pace as being too fast. But can I run a 2400m test in 3:02/k? Yes, probably and Tinman is okay with deriving CV paces from that time-trial. I'm probably underdeveloped aerobically (3.8k lifetime miles isn't that much), so my 10k time doesn't match my shorter times.

Few weeks ago when I was out of shape I started with CV in 3:40/k, then progressed to 3:30/k and now I'm doing 3:20/k, effort and HR being similar in each. I agree that my CV pace might be too fast now, since 20 sec/k improvement in just 1-2 months is a lot. But since I want to peak soon and am at the end of my training cycle, the pace should be fine as long as I don't burnout or kill myself. Then, after the season is over I can work with slower reps again, do them in Fartlek form on trails/hills instead of the track and slightly add on to my mileage (from 65 mpw to 70-75 mpw).

Does Loudon Valley reject runners? Do they have like XC tryouts?

You don't do your workouts in flats?

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

He also stresses repeatedly that if you raced a 15 flat 5k, you probably shouldn't use that time to get your CV paces, as on a training day, without taper, without racing flats you might only be able to do a 15:25 5k. Then he wants you to do CV based on that 15:25 time.

The important thing about CV pace is it should be the pace you can hold for 30-35 min on that specific day.

I agree that you should take a realistic time to calculate your CV paces, using his calculator. As you said, if you run a downhill 5k, then that's probably not accurate. Or have a very bad 5k or 10k race, you might not to use that either. But at the end of the day, you just have to pick something and get as close as you can.

But, it should be your 30-35min pace you can hold on "that specific day?" How exactly would you know what that is?

Again, at some point you just have to pick a result, extrapolate CV pace using the calculator and get after it. Some workouts will be great, others might not be. That's how running works. And then every 6~8 weeks you retest using a race or solo time trial and determine your training paces if needed.

As Tinman has said many times, if your CV pace is say, 6:00/mi at the beginning of your training cycle, the goal isn't to constantly run faster or push the envelope and try to improve your CV pace every other week.. it's just to train at that pace and have it become easier over time. Simple as that.

Lastly, any deviation from his program means you aren't doing his program. Not saying you did, but choosing to do workouts on effort, or really do anything your way, means you aren't doing the Tinman program.

You know for example that if it's very hot or humid, you wouldn't be able to hold your pace from a 5k under perfect conditions. So you would do it slower.

I started my training cycle 11 weeks ago after 2 weeks off and a short flu before. In these 4 weeks I did:

4 weeks at 3:40/k

2 weeks at 3:30/k

2 weeks at 3:25/k

3 weeks at 3:20/k

Now before that time off, I have already done 3:20-3:25/k, and got a 4.2k race in 3:17/k out of it. It is easier to get back to a level you have previously been after a break than it is to venture into new territory.

I can again link my CV doc:

Which shows all sessions and the corresponding average HR per rep. The faster CV sessions in the last weeks often have a lower HR than the slower ones 1-2 months ago. This is due to improvements in fitness - increases in blood volume, and adaptions in mitochondria and aerobic efficiency/running economy lead to higher paces at the same HR. I also lost some of the weight I gained during the 2 weeks off. Interesting - I improved my CV pace by around 22 sec/k in these 11 weeks, but the improvement didn't come gradually with 2s every week. There would be spikes of improvement, where I'm 5-10 sec faster every 2-4 weeks. That's exactly how my body adapts to the Tinman training.

So I've been doing exactly what Tinman wants - stick some time at a pace, until it gets much easier. Since I always run with same effort, which is around 170 HR at the end of each rep (max being 183), the progression comes natural to me. I just don't have time-trials or current races to proof that I'm in better shape.

@The guy before: I'm doing workouts in the Adios (CV) and LT4 (faster stuff), and road races in either. The LT4 is definitely faster for me than the Adios.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Interesting - I improved my CV pace by around 22 sec/k in these 11 weeks, but the improvement didn't come gradually with 2s every week. There would be spikes of improvement, where I'm 5-10 sec faster every 2-4 weeks. That's exactly how my body adapts to the Tinman training.

So I've been doing exactly what Tinman wants - stick some time at a pace, until it gets much easier. Since I always run with same effort, which is around 170 HR at the end of each rep (max being 183), the progression comes natural to me. I just don't have time-trials or current races to proof that I'm in better shape.

So how do you determine your CV pace? Do you do a race, then plug the numbers into the calculator? Or do a 30min workout as hard as you can, then use that pace as your CV pace?

I don't remember what Tinman's thoughts on HR were.. I just know that a lot of his guys are using power meters now. And that everytime I see a Tinman Elite post, none of his athletes are wearing HR monitors.. so I don't think that's a variable he works with too often. But, CV is 90% of V02Max, or 30~35min race effort. And changing that based on temperature and humidity seems a bit obsessive more than anything, and probably not necessary, but to each their own.

UA Runner, I think you are making too much of Phil's comment about running by feel. I think he is sticking fairly closely to the spirit of tinman training -- without being obsessive. Don't we all adjust our workout paces when conditions are tough or we aren't feeling good? No good comes from blasting a workout against all odds in order to stick to a training plan. Similarly, some of us can be trusted to know when we are in better shape and can handle a little faster pace (or shorter rest). On the flip side, many do push too hard, so the warnings not to assume too much about your improving 5K pace without a test is good advice as well!

We'll know in a few weeks whether Phil is in sub 16:00 shape and has been correct in his assessment. I'm unsure, but guessing that he may have gotten it right.

you mentioned Loudon Valley rejected runners? I didn't know XC has tryouts?!

How are races killing you if the pace is so much slower than your reps?

So you wrote you did 3:20 CV pace just before your 2 week break/setback and it resulted in a 4.2 k race at 3:17/k. That means what you feel should be your CV pace, is very much your 5 k pace in reality, then. There's nothing wrong with that, I do 6 x 1000 a bit faster than my 5 k pace occasionally, so I know it's possible but maybe not advisable on a weekly basis.

However, just think about this: now you are just back to about your "CV pace" pre setback, so guess what - you will likely run the same 5 k as well, and that is around 16:40 and no magic 15 flat or thereabouts, like you are hoping for. That you needed about 10 weeks just to get back what you lost in 2 weeks, also shows you that it was no kind of sustainable CV pace but a race-like 5 k pace effort, otherwise it would have been possible to just jump right back into it after a week or two.

You have no problem to admit being a beginner (maybe to impress others with some kind of talent which you might actually have) but then you should not do your workouts by feel, you just don't have the right feeling yet.

Advice from a friend: don't try to further bring down your "CV pace" to 3:05/k now (like you wrote you plan to do), and stick to 3:20 or even better relax and do a more realistic 3:30. If not you risk being disappointed, and maybe stale and overtrained or even injured, by end of September when your 5 k race is scheduled. Remember, a sub30 10 k (which would result in a 3:00-3:05 CV pace) is very much national elite in Austria. I do not think you are quite close to that level already.

Loudon Valley question wrote:

you mentioned Loudon Valley rejected runners? I didn't know XC has tryouts?!

From an interview of Dec 2018:

How many kids tried out at the start of the season?

Marc Hunter: Well we don’t cut. Last year, we had, before the season started, I had 178 kids on the roster. And I said, we cannot. There’s no way we can handle 178, so I petitioned the county for extra coaches. But if we got extra coaches, then every other team in the county, even those with 20 on their roster, would have to have another coach. So they said no. So, knowing full well that I didn’t have the heart to cut anyone, I just sent out an email to parents saying, we’ve gotta do something about the roster size, I might have to cut kids. And the next day, 30 kids didn’t show up to practice. So last year, I think we ended up the season at 128. Thirty kids kind of cut themselves and a few others [left] by the end of the first week, so we were down to a manageable level.

9 minute fade wrote:

How are races killing you if the pace is so much slower than your reps?

Races of 5k or under are faster than CV pace/effort for me, longer races are slower but still have a higher heart rate. The longer a race, the worse I perform. My best race would probably be a 400/800, though I never raced anything less than a 5k (unless you count the 4.2k).

It has to do with muscle fiber distribution. I have way more fast-twitch fibers than would be ideal for a distance runner. That's also why Tinman training is so effective for me - it targets these fibers, and makes them work more aerobically. This process takes many years tho. Since I'm still a relative beginner (~2 years of running at least 2-3 times a week), Tinman training drops my times across all distances, including the 400 as I can hold a strong pace for longer. I plan to do some time-trials in a variety of distances after my 5k goal race to get an idea of where I'm standing.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

My best race would probably be a 400/800

So why are you trying to be a distance runner?

1) The 4.2k race in 3:17 was a pretty fast course, but not ideal (a light climb, 3-4 non-ideal turns and one 180 degree turn). Weather and competition was perfect. That said, it was completely all-out, already 1.5k before the finish I was dry-heaving but managed to push through and outkick one guy for 2nd place at end.

On a track, I have perfect conditions - this is where my CV intervals take place. On a track, I probably would have been slightly faster over the 4.2k. My CV workouts prior to the race where:

3/7 6x1000 in 3:27

3/13 6x1000 in 3:26

3/27 6x1000 in 3:25

4/3 5x1000 in 3:22

4/6 race 4.2k in 3:17/k (road)

Now if the 4.2k race would have been on the track, I would have likely been a bit faster, which would be perfectly in line with my CV intervals.

2) Since I started running, I took 3 breaks longer than 4 days off (usually around 10 days off). In each, it took me 2 months just to get back to where I was - not just CV pace, but also easy run pace and tempo pace. People constantly tell me it shouldn't be like that, but it is.

First, I'm a beginner - my aerobic base is still extremely weak. I don't have the lifetime mileage of someone like Lagat who can take a full month off and is right back after 1-2 weeks of jogging.

Second, I have a higher percentage of FT fibers. I need to work a lot to get my easy run pace and tempo-pace down, including heavy cross-training. Meanwhile I don't have to do anything for good speed/kick, this I just naturally have.

Third, every time I took time off, I would just be working in front of a PC and playing video games. So zero physical activity for 10 days. My blood volume and many aerobic adaptions drop rapidly. My body responds very quickly to training, but also to de-training (brain is optimizing my body for sitting in front of a PC you could say).

Finally, my base level is extremely low. I was the slowest person in a "cooper test" (12 min all-out on track), doing 5.25 laps as 17-year old. When I started running, I was running 1k/500m walk with 12 min miles for the 1k. My first timed 5k after some training was 32 minutes at 200 HR. If your base level is so low, and you improve it significantly, you also need to expect it to drop significantly after 2 weeks off. Some runners can run a 40 min 10k based off no training according to my coach (which for me is hard to believe, but if he says so..), so obviously they can take 2 weeks off and still be fast, but someone like me wouldn't be.

3) Never said I'm talented. My progression is entirely based on the effectiveness of Tinman training on me. I wasn't able to break 20:30 in a 5k before I got a coach who prescribes training that's very close to Tinman. My own training was just terrible and ineffective, I did everything wrong that could be done wrong. Since I follow my coach and Tinman, I progressed constantly and now hope to break 16 next month.

you are what you is wrote:

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

My best race would probably be a 400/800

So why are you trying to be a distance runner?

Good question. When I started to jog in my mid-20s, I had no real goals. Just wanted to run so I don't have to take the elevator each time at work because I was so unfit. It took some time to find out where my strengths lie in comparison to other people. I thought everyone would be reasonably fast, like 50-55s 400m speed when I was running 5k's in the 17-19 min range. However I noticed that at the end of races, I would be significantly faster than anyone else, finishing in 2:30-2:40/k and closing huge gaps. I tend to get passed in the middle of races because I'm at my aerobic limit, which is quite low (but getting better). But I can shift up several gears in the last 400m or so where others only get a bit faster.

Now why am I still training Tinman? Because his system works for ALL distances. I'm improving in the 800m and even 400m with his CV sessions. In the beginning I was doing 1k VO2MAX reps in 4:10-4:20/k, even with decent speed that's not gonna let you run a decent 800m. Now after a year with Tinman training these would be at 2:55-3:00/k, so even if I didn't do a single session to improve my max sprint speed I would be much faster over 800m, and even 400m.

Tinman said his standard training can get someone to 97-98% of potential in the 800m. For the last few %, he said hard anaerobic sessions would be necessary as the 800m has a high anaerobic component compared to the mile or other longer races. I started training more consistently when I was 30 years old (early 2018), if you start running at that age you don't really get your 800m time down to like 1:45 anymore, even if you specifically train for it. But if my potential is 1:54 that I could reach with optimized 800m training for 5 years, I'd rather be doing Tinman training for 5-10k and run a 1:57 800m off that. That level would still be enough to compete in some master races later and I would be a solid distance runner across many distances.

No one in the real life cares about your 400m or 800m time. The average human got no idea what a 47s 400m or 1:48 800m is worth. But a sub 15 5k? A 2:30 marathon? Those are distances most people can identify with. Maybe I'll focus on the 800m one time and replace the Tinman Tempo with some speed work, but for now I wanna just progress as runner, get my 1k/CV pace/threshold down and keep doing what worked so far. No need to risk intense speed work yet that might cause injury, rather save it for later as an untouched stimulus for further improvement.

LYDIARD TRAINING SYSTEM or Periodization is the way to go.

It is not neccesary to run intervals every week of the year, you need 8-12 week of base work, 4-6 weeks of intervals or races (the best option, you learn racing by racing) and taper 7-14 days. This will work for everyone, 40 years ago and 40 years later.

I improved from 35´ to 32:... with 2 periodization cycles. Give it a try and enjoy!

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

No one in the real life cares about your 400m or 800m time. The average human got no idea what a 47s 400m or 1:48 800m is worth. But a sub 15 5k? A 2:30 marathon? Those are distances the average human got no idea about either.