testing_ wrote:
At the end of the day his concepts are not much different than any other coach. CV is running just over threshold for shorter bouts. He uses mile reps at lactate threshold and tempo runs. I think his idea of adding hills and strides to the end of runs is sensible, too.
He is overconfident in his calculations, but I also think the debate in running of optimal vs. maximal is one worth considering. Most runners could probably do much less than they are doing and be running just as good as they are at the edge, aside from people in the top .1% of the running world who need to be pushing the edge.
Most solid running programs look very similar, his included. As Bob Larsen said, when in doubt run at threshold, and CV is just a different way to approach that.
His tempo runs are slower than most people do them, around MP. That's an important difference to for example Jack Daniels with his 20 min threshold-tempos or the infamous Salazar tempos that are just barely slower than 10k pace. The idea of adding fast stuff at the end is good, but runners need to be careful to not make a normal workout into a massive one by combining too many layers. Don't forget many of his elite runners were injured at some point in their early career already.
Yes, his calculations are often WAY over-the-top. I remember when he was prescribing rest intervals down to the hundreth's of a second, because that's what he precisely calculated. He is a science freak, and let's it take over him. But there are other coaches who had similar problems and became too scientific and slaves of their numbers and formulas, like Jack Daniels.
The ideal training stimulus is probably around 80% of max capacity. Too many train at or near 100% (or above) and frequently get injured, setting them back big time. Tinman's philosophy is to train only at 80%, and avoid these long breaks so the ball can keep rolling. It worked in recreational runners, in elite HS runners, and in master runners quite well so far.