LateRunnerPhil - Tinman Training Through Summer to 5k PR in Sep (Goal ~15:30)

Yes, that's true. When you see Bekele, Geb, El Guerrouj, etc closing fast 5k and 10k races in 53s, it is not because they are fast-twitch guys but because even in a 27 min 10k they run at a lactate steady state throughout and got plenty of energy left at the end for a big kick, which is near their 400m PR pace (48s El G, 49-50s Bekele & Geb). They are all proven/known slow-twitch monsters, so a fast kick in a 5k/10k doesn't mean much.

But look at 1500m races. Have you seen championship races in around 4 min? That go out in 76s for the first lap, and 1:42 for 600m? Then the fast-twitch guys can beat runners with much better PRs. Lewandowski beat Iguider in Birmingham 2018 world indoor 1500m, collecting the first ever medal in that event for Poland. And not just that, he also went from place 7 to place 2 in the last 300m or so, passing everyone on the outside lane. And that race started super slow (34-42-36), so everyone had their anaerobic system available at the end, it's just that Lewandowski's is much stronger and he got more FT fibers than the other 1500m guys. He did the same to Ingebrigtsen many times, and since improving his own 1500m time to 3:31, never lost to Jakob in a race (e.g. EU championship indoor 2019, Doha 2019). You can post here again about FT not mattering when Jakob manages to beat Lewandowski again (or Makhloufi, another FT guy).

As for myself, if I really was a slow-twitch talent I wouldn't have been so slow when I started. Unable to jog a mile, at 12+ min pace. Unable to ride my bike more than 8 miles. When I was physically inactive, I only reached 5.25 laps in a "cooper-test" (12 mins around the track). That's the equivalent of a 8:20 mile all-out. You think someone with lots of slow-twitch fibers could be that slow? And I was skinny back then, but still could run fast in the 200 compared to others.

The reason WHY I'm improving at a solid rate is that I'm converting FT fibers to work more aerobically. I respond very well to training, but my baseline was slow. But even that doesn't mean anything tho, Reed Fischer, who is the most slow-twitch runner in Tinman Elite, was also slow when he started (24 min 5k). So maybe you are right after all, and I'm still under-trained aerobically (but keep in mind I did a lot of swimming and cycling after my early 20s so don't just look at my lifetime running mileage).

Another thread started by LateRunnerPhil, a novice runner, to lecture others about training systems and what they mean. Please stop.

Lewandowski runs 160km/week and has a lactate threshold at 2.5 mmol so exactly how ‘fast twitch’ he is remains to be seen ?.

Do a standing broad jump. Or one legged hop test. Or jump as high as you can. Or a 400m all out and record lactate 1 min then 5 min after. See how long it keeps climbing for. A sprinter will have his highest lactate 10 min later.

Just do these tests and then you have an answer. Then you will also have much more clarity as to how you should train.

Honestly you sound like a typical ‘Diesel engine’ type, not much ability when untrained but can grind for a long time and get better. The more slow twitch you are the higher training load you can handle in general. And you have trained very hard. This is fine — take things easier, commit to a good training schedule, and in 6 months you will see results. But you have to be **consistent**.

Haven’t you found your heart rate zones in one of your lactate tests? Forget Tinman and his hate for heart rate monitors. All good athletes train with heart rate monitors. You can’t be a slave to one, we all know heart rate varies each day, but trust me — you are someone who will greatly benefit from using one for all trainings at threshold and below. It will help you nail the paces for CV, threshold, and ‘Tinman tempo’s’ (aerobic threshold pace)

Yes, Lewandowski is not fast-twitch like a sprinter. In the 800m, he was slow-twitch. He didn't have the speed of his fellow countryman Adam Kszczot or David Rudisha. But he moved up to the 1500m, and as former 800m guy with 47s 400m speed and 1:43 800m, he is often one of the fastest runners in the field (Maklhoufi is another one). Jakob can neither run 47s nor 1:43. Not even if running for his life, being chased by a lion or tiger. That's why he lost to both of them in Doha, where his goal was to medal (I'm not talking about Tim since he is clearly 1-2 levels above any other 1500m runner currently). The 160-180 km he is doing is in BASE phase, during season he is doing a lot less. Also his threshold is not at 2.5 mmol, his brother (who is his coach) said that Lewandowski "is able to clock 10.5 for 100m, 47.0 for 400m and also get under 30 minutes for 10km, all in training.” A slow-twitch guy won't run 10.5 in the 100m, not even with a flying start. No way. Most elite milers, like Nick Willis and Centro run around 11.0-11.2 in a flying 100m, and Willis is by no means a slow-twitch monster like Ingebrigtsen or others.

You are asking me to run a sub 11 flying 100 on the track? GL. That doesn't just require a good amount of FT fibers, but also coordination and some speed training, which I'm not doing. Why would I need to sprint a 100 in the same time as Nick Willis to show that I'm FT in a 5k? If a 13:20 guy like Willis (who is FT in a 5k) can run a 11.0 flying 100, a 16:15 guy like me, which is 35s/k slower (or 3.5s every 100m) would need to run 14.5 flying 100, which is a jog for me. Sure, running is very complex and this comparison doesn't mean much, as he has a much higher VO2MAX and aerobic ability but if you want to classify someone running a 5k as ST or specialist you can't use the 100m speed of 13:20 runners as comparison.

Facts are, my threshold, 10k ability and HM ability are damn awful at the moment. So my training will focus on improving these parameters, to lay down the foundation for even better performances in shorter events from 800-5k.

HR training did not work for me. My HR depends on temperature, time of day, sun or clouds, glycogen status, dehydration status, how much sleep I got, etc. My easy runs were too fast when training with HR, same with my 1k reps. HR would get lower and lower week after week, but my legs just got more and more fatigued. Doing time-trials and sticking to Tom's (Tinman) paces is probably the smartest thing I can do this summer.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

peekay wrote:

Phil, what if you actually use Tinman training this time but don’t improve? What if you were better on the nonTinman training you did before?

I've only been running for 2.5 years, got plenty of improvement left. A 16:15 5k isn't fast, even in my age group.

The thing about Tinman training is you don't concern yourself with trying to rush fitness as fast as possible. CV and threshold takes some time to work and show results, but it's better in the long term. My training will get more intensity in the 6-12 weeks out from peak competition, but the stamina component will always be there.

No, I did not ask whether you will improve, or why you would improve.

My question was: IF you don't improve and it turns out that the other "bad" training made you better...what will you do then?

Also, I am curious why you refuse local anesthesia.

peekay wrote:

Also, I am curious why you refuse local anesthesia.

Because I don't need it, I think it's a waste of money. Our brain gives us pain signals for a reason, and I don't want to shut them off. I also don't take painkillers for the same reason when I'm sick.

I had to get a crown after a tooth broke, and it took me a long time to convince the experienced dentist to not use local anesthesia. Finally he agreed to try it, under the condition to inject it if the bleeding doesn't stop (the second reason they give it). After the procedure (which went without problems) he was surprised of how calm I remained even when he was drilling/cutting the gum to make room (which admittedly was the worst of it).

But I almost enjoy this kind of hard/sharp pain, what I don't like is the pain during a 10k or half-marathon, this creeping fatigue that builds I just can't mentally cope with that and feel terrible.

For the other question, I don't concern myself with what would happen if I miss my goals. It's a fictional scenario. And even if it happens, who knows if the training was the culprit and thing to blame? Maybe I had a bad day. Maybe I neglected core/strength training. Maybe I wasn't fueled properly or not at the ideal weight. Maybe the weather was bad (I'm terrible in sun and when it's above 50-55F, but strong in rain and very cold temperatures). We can't let 1-2 goal races decide how the training went. IF my tempos get faster, if the same CV pace starts feeling easier, if my longer race times get quicker, I'd say the training was a success - even if I only run 16:10 and not 15:35.

I didn’t guess that lewandowski’s threshold is 2.5 mmol. I know that it is. I also know that he runs high mileage in season. My point, that you failed to understand, is that athletes vary physiologically much more than this simple model you like to paint.

I should not have said that about the sub 11 100m. It was a poor joke in response to your statement that you had “crazy speed” as a kid. The real thing I said, that you have still not responded to, was any number of tests to see your how anaerobically (or not) fit you are. But you’re probably to scared to do them to find out the truth.

Also Jakob faded in Doha due to a combination of factors that can’t be distilled down to “ST/FT”. He went very hard very early. He didn’t get outsprinted — he flat out died. Things are much more complicated out here in the real world.

HR training works for everybody. Your heart is not special and does not work differently. Everybody has a varying heart rate. You read somewhere that heart rate varies too much for those reasons and confirmation bias lead you to decide that it didn’t work.

I don’t know why I’m responding to you Phil. I want to help but the reality is, behind your long posts there is little logic. Most of what you say is dictated by emotion and the arguments you make validate how you feel. I know this because if you are proven wrong you always come up with a new argument. This is why it took you 4 months to realize that you were training too hard.

But you did realize that you were training too hard, so maybe you can realize that there are people with more experience than you who really can help you.

About heart rate training : yes; a common mistake is using heart rate on easy runs. An easy run is a very wide hr zone and since it’s low intensity can vary enormously. Don’t do that.

Your HR got lower and lower each week because you were fatigued/depleted. This is a basic fact that you know as well, but this does not mean that HR training doesn’t work. In fact your knowledge of how HR can vary is exactly what you need to train properly with heart rate.

You need to have done a recent lactate test to know which zones to run in. I was under the impression that you had done this but maybe it’s been too long. A book stating 70-85% max hr — or something like that — for aerobic threshold running should be thrown out the window. It’s only useful when you have good data.

When you understand heart rate, you understand that it takes a while for your heart rate to climb. It takes longer the more aerobically fit you are. So if your threshold is 175-180bpm and you do threshold 1000s and immediately hit 180, what did you do wrong? With the knowledge you have you should know that you should have started at 175 (and it’s the *end* of the rep HR that matters) to let the HR drift up to 180 at the end.

its not that Heart rate training didn’t work for you. You didn’t work with heart rate training.

Heart rate training is perfect for an athlete like you who tends to go too hard. You use it to hold yourself *back*. Again, only if you have the correct zones. And even then, you have to listen to your body as well. Sometimes I have a threshold workout and run as much as 5 bpm below my zone because I have difficulty getting my heart rate up. That’s just how it is.

So you're just making up stuff according to feelings. Stop it.

You're starting to sound like the Greg of physiology.

The reason he refuses local anesthesia is because his hero does the same thing.

From Tubman’s bio on his website:

“Tom is a competitor to his core, even refusing to take painkillers while fighting through a brain tumor a few years ago.”

https://www.tinmanelite.com/meet-our-coaches

So you’re either full of it, Tom himself, or just a really weird fanboy.

5x3 min with 90s rest - kinda sounds familiar to me (Tinman prescribes exactly that workout at CV pace). Also 12-14x30on, 30off is something he has prescribed in the past. That's a typical session he prescribes in a "down week" for advanced athletes. Not a real workout with lots of volume, but relaxed, speedy running. No wonder you enjoyed these workouts and they were effective.

Yea I don't read Tom's stuff funny that those workouts were around in 1985/86 back when him and I were the same age!

Every coach comes up with things that work. Before your 5k attempt you could try a session of Deeks Quarters 8x400 w/200 float. Your 4800m time will be roughly what you will run 5k in. Here are a few other sessions that may work for someone like yourself:

2.5k at threshold 1500 float 2.5k threshold

4k threshold + 10x100m hill sprints

3x4x400m at 3k pace on 2 min cycle (around 45 seconds rest) 2 minutes between sets.

I don't know if these are Tinmen like but it has worked with some pretty good runner both male and female.

Good luck!

im rooting for you phil!

+1

Phil, following with interest to see how you go this time. One concerning thing is how you've mapped out your phases, 6 weeks 'base', 4 weeks 'speed', 4 weeks 'peaking incl racing' (can't remember exactly), but shows you like the fast side of training and 'base' is just something that has to be done, with little enjoyment. I fear you may lose the aerobic strength of 'base' with such a long speed/peaking phase.

Tinman is good for recreational runners, not elites. It will most likely help the weekend worrier

oh come on, lets get real for a second wrote:

The reason he refuses local anesthesia is because his hero does the same thing.

From Tubman’s bio on his website:

“Tom is a competitor to his core, even refusing to take painkillers while fighting through a brain tumor a few years ago.”

So you’re either full of it, Tom himself, or just a really weird fanboy.

That's coincidence. The dentist was very surprised when I refused local anesthesia (which was included in the price), and he was a former military dentist who has done thousands of such crowns already. On my first crown I had no choice (it was take it or leave) and to be honest, the needle injection and numb feeling afterwards is worse than the intense pain you experience when your gum gets drilled without local anesthesia.

Just like a 10k or HM are harder than a 3k or 5k, these races just never seem to end and are an endless struggle for me.

Refusing to take painkillers (which I also do, like Tom) is probably one level below refusing local anesthesia, but it is an interesting coincidence.

Jakob went hard early (around 600m out) because it was his only chance. Remember the indoor European championship 2019 where it was a slow race (3:42), and Lewandowski sat behind him until 200 to go? He absolutely smoked Ingebrigtsen there, passing him at the bell and never giving Jakob a chance to get back, closing in 26.2 without much effort. That single-handedly destroyed the dream of the double for Jakob, and the only reason for it was the difference in speed/FT fibers. In Doha, Jakob knew that Tim would be unbeatable (anyone following the 1500m scene would have known that), and that his main competitors are Maklhoufi and Lewandowski, who are both much speedier/more FT 800/1500 specialists. If he runs their pace until 200-400 to go, the medal is gone. So him trying to make a move early was his best bet at medaling. Lewandowski, as usual, was in like 8th place at the very end of the field when the bell rang, but passed almost the entire field on lane 3 and charged to bronze with his superior speed.

HR for me did not work. My max HR changes from 168-183, that's massive range. When it's cold, or when I'm glycogen depleted/overtrained I can't get over 170. If it's hot, I can reach 180 without fast paces.

And HR just made it worse for me. I would always try to reach a high HR (170) for my "CV reps" (I race a 5k around 175, and my max is around 180), but that 170 was usually 5k pace/effort and heavy breathing. At the end I was running 3:17/k reps at 165 HR which was faster than 5k pace. But HR just doesn't go up fast enough sometimes especially since I was very well adapted to the workout.

When HR did work, like in some tempos I did, I would always run them at the very upper end of the range and not in the range. So if ideal range is 150-160, I would run at 160 and maybe even a bit higher at the end. That's not how it's supposed to be done. I was abusing HR to run faster than I should (and I love speed).

It is true that many elite athletes or very good runners use HR as a very effective tool, especially for tempos. But they are mentally strong, they have no issue to run in the middle of the right zone or to stop if it goes too high, but I'm not like that. Since I changed to effort-base running, my tempos are actually better/more moderate and I recover a lot faster. I don't stress about paces during 1k or mile reps anymore and just make sure I'm running within my abilities. For me, getting rid of HR monitor was a positive thing.

Last about the threshold test (lactate test). These tests always showed a threshold WAY above my level, and predicted a 10k time above my level. It might have to do with cycling/swimming affecting the test, or maybe I was just well adapted to running intervals. I've done the same interval workout (5-7x1k with 200 rest) week after week after week. The threshold test was done as interval workout, and predicted times that I could never run in a race. One test was especially misleading (saying my 4 mmol threshold is 3:26/k and even more funny my 2 mmol is 3:38/k), might have had to do with two 4 minute breaks during the reps because other participants had to go to the toilet. And I just recovered fast during these.

The threshold test suggested my threshold at 174 HR 3:26/k, when my max HR is 180. 3:26/k at that point I could hold for around 6k (21 minutes), and the recommended CV pace of 3:20-3:25 I could only hold for 15-20 minutes in a race. This test was one main driver (in addition to low HR during reps) that made me believe I'm running at CV when I was actually running at 5k pace. My last threshold test was the only one that's reasonably accurate, with 3:34/k at 4 mmol which fits to a 10k of ~3:30/k.

I will respond one more time because it is clear you still do not understand that the world of physiology is much more complex than you think. In both European indoors 2019 ( I was there, and remember the races very well) and Doha 2019, Jakob did the double 3000-1500 and 5000-1500. To say that he lost to lewandowski solely due to a difference in muscle fiber type is an incredible oversimplification. You ignore countless other factors, the most important being that Lewandowski had far fewer races in his legs than Jakob. Anything else is just grasping at straws.

I will admit that I was misremembering the races in Doha. Saying Jakob went to early, I was thinking about the 5000 where he staggered home the last 100m in 17 seconds.

From the horse's mouth. You admit that you didn't do it correctly. BUT you MUST realize that hiding the heart rate values is not going to fix your tendency to go too hard in training. This is a reality, as shown by your over training last fall and subsequent injuries. Hiding from the truth does not change the truth.

But you don't do effort-based running, you fixate on unreachable times and goal paces and run yourself into the ground. Not having a heart rate monitor hasn't fixed that.

I can't say anything here. Like with the heart rate monitor, if the test is not done properly then it's not worth doing.

Here is my suggestion from looking at your training plan. 3'30 for your 1600m repeats assuming 1-2 minutes rest means you probably are in shape for 1645 for 5k. Back off and assume that you are in shape for 17:00-17:15. Then do the 1600s in 3:35-3:40/km.

This is difficult to hear because in essence it's saying that you're WORSE than you think you are. But this is the essence of training. You have to have the courage to train easier than you think that you have to train. Every athlete is different, and some athletes need someone to push themselves to run harder. But you are the type that needs someone to hold yourself back. Be proud of your ability to work hard, but also know that it means that you should ALWAYS do less than you think you should. So if your first instinct is 3:30 for the 1600s, then do 3:40.

But let's go even further. Why 1600s? Give yourself 5 weeks, week 1 1000s, week 3 1200s, week 5 1600s. All at the same pace. Give yourself time.

Your 7000m time trial is ludicrous. It is insanity to keep repeating the same mistakes. You will not run 3'20/km when you can hardly do that pace for 5k solo. Aim for 3'30 instead. If you feel good halfway then you will speed up. The beauty of long distances is that you can run within a few seconds of your best all-out effort on a big negative split, with a lot more room for error when done this way.

Don't do workouts with your races/time trials. It's the new sexy thing everyone loves doing but you don't train enough volume to do it. It's just overloading your system.

You will probably scoff at what I'm saying, proceed to do your original plan, and be trashed in a few months. But in the case that you do listen, keep in mind: Your goal races are in September. That's more than enough time to build up slowly. Keep in mind that training too hard has the same exact effect as training too easy. Your body doesn't get any better. Except that when you train too hard, you also reduce your ability to absorb any future training, and risk

HR/running too fast - yes, I ran CV sessions and tempos too fast. It was not because I'm not able to run what I want to run, but because I overestimated my fitness level and calculated my paces off my 16:00 5k goal that I thought I would be in shape in if I just mentally try harder. So my paces were around 5-10s/k too fast on tempos, threshold, mile reps and CV 1k reps, also on VO2MAX reps and my peaking session. IF I derive my paces from realistic times, like a non-tapered TT done on the track in the same conditions I plan to do my workouts in, they will be slower and then I will not run faster since I want to train OPTIMALLY and not just as hard as I can so I'm done by the last rep.

1600m reps in 3:35-3:40/k? Tinman calculator wants this (threshold) pace for a 16:36/34:35 guy. You really think I'm in that bad shape at the moment? 3:40/k is more like MP/Tinman tempo pace atm, fully aerobic without much breathing. I've done a lot of aerobic training in the last months, my problem atm is rather not being able to get fast/produce/tolerate more lactic anymore, but that will come back after the peaking phase and first races. One potential problem I'm encountering is that I'm just shifting from aerobic to anaerobic, and vice-versa, but not really making massive improvements anymore. But we will see what's gonna happen when I'm turning this massive base I'm building at the moment into specific speed again. 2:40-3:00/k feels very comfortable during strides.

I have done a 6k TT, solo on the track, in 3:30/k last year. Around 10k pace, it was tough at the end. Races that followed 2-3 weeks later were 6.4k in 3:25/k (sunny and untapered) and then 5k in 3:15/k (peak race, with group to run with). Both all-out and with a massive kick at the end. So 7k now in 3:20-3:25/k should be realistic. I might even buy the Next% for it, sadly the last two running shoes I bought were too small and give me blisters (bought them on discount and they only had half size smaller available, big mistake).

I will probably combine the 7k TT with 4x200 to work on speed. Hard days hard, easy days easy. Also a 2k TT is not a workout day, there NEEDS to be some CV reps afterwards or at least a tempo/threshold run. 23:20-23:30 is my goal range (3:20-3:22/k), which would certify a CV pace of 3:25/k (which is still slow for me, considering I did them in 3:17-3:21/k mostly).

Comical wrote:

Another thread started by LateRunnerPhil, a novice runner, to lecture others about training systems and what they mean. Please stop.

+1