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

Phil,

How much rest on those 1600 repeats. Presumably on the track?

highhoppingworm wrote:

Phil,

How much rest on those 1600 repeats. Presumably on the track?

400m jog.

Tinman usually does:

7x1000 @CV, 200m rest. + hills/strides/200s etc OR

5x1600 @Threshold, 400m rest. +hills/strides/200s etc

In Farlek form, he likes 7x(3min on, 1 min off) or 6x(5min on, 2 min off), again around CV effort for the 3 min and threshold effort for the 5 min off.

Jack Daniels does the same workout 5x1600, but with 1 min rest. I've done it with 1 min rest in the past and it was very hard, but it also was CV and not threshold back then (all my paces were one level too fast). I think 2 min rest is fine for them, don't see much benefit of 1 min.

In a VO2MAX workout however, like 12x400, I would try to keep rest low, around 40-45s so keep HR and VO2MAX more elevated.

Week 3 (8h45min):

5/18 - 110 min in 7:30/mi flat route (sunny, hot) + 30 min PM

5/19 - 60 min 8:00/mi & 10x20s ST (felt bad)

5/20 - 75 min incl. 10k @Threshold (3:33/k) & 4x30s hill sprints in Next% + 30 min PM. Next% Test on asphalt, 3-4s/k faster than with other shoes but didn't feel good, 8k supportive wind and last 2k against the wind where I suffered badly and had to hang on.

5/21 - 70 min 7:45/mi, hilly trails, ran hard on downhill, great route that I didn't run for long time

5/22 - 60 min 7:45/mi & 10x20s ST. Slow run, strides fast with very long strides

5/23 - 60 min incl. 6x1000m @CV in 3:30/k, on track. Shin pain, felt terrible, heavy breathing, low cadence, humid. Pure grind and depressing.

5/24- 30 min 8:20/mi. Shin pain/lower legs dead, slow, no fun.

The bad side of training hard and running. Only the mid-week 70 min run was enjoyable, the rest was either painful or just grinding it out. Mileage wasn't high in last weeks (~70 mpw), but my lower legs were getting worse and worse and shin splints getting out of hand. I finally had them under control earlier this year, and got up to 90+ mpw in training camp. Many potential reasons (introduced hard surfaces again, lowered cadence a bit by increase stride length/pushoff, heat, harder runs/workouts, maximal TTs, too hard strides etc).

I also seem to have peaked or at least have way too much speed right now which might have come at the cost of stamina/endurance. Speed is bad if it's being produced metabolically. This was the same in my 1st and 2nd year of running, I would do one big race and then afterwards would get worse and worse.

Will try a recovery week next week, with only strides and a fast 60 min tempo on the weekend, keeping mileage around 70 mpw.

I'm feeling better now after the really slow 30 min jog on Sunday (today), hope that soon I will have some "successes" again.

12x400 @ Vo2max with 45 seconds rest isn't a Tinman workout, is it? Don't Tinman and Daniels agree that you want at least equal time recoveries for that workout?

Well......"The old man and the sea" chime in for some comments. )) You made a threshold of correct pace for you......but too long sustained to run 10 k ( besides it was not many days after your fine TT 10 k at 3:24min/ km) and that contributes to put too much pressure on your body and overtraining /injury risks increase. And on top of that long threshold you increased the body pressure with 4 x 30 sec hill sprints. What are you thinking about! ? You are doing the same mistakes that you did before.

21/ 5 " 70 min 7:45 pace .....RAN HARD DOWNHILL" .......and you wonder why you got shin pain?

You make a beginners mistakes.You ran too many days with fast paces. It`s like asking for the injury to come.

You are just one more time running yourself into disaster!

Maybe you are too proud to realise what I say is correct?

I offered you free coaching but you let it down. No free offer more.

- Your head coach -

webby wrote:

12x400 @ Vo2max with 45 seconds rest isn't a Tinman workout, is it? Don't Tinman and Daniels agree that you want at least equal time recoveries for that workout?

It's a classic, he often prescribes that. But also in Fartlek form, 12x1 min on, 30s off on grass @roughly 3k effort. His elites on Strava are doing it roughly every 3 weeks, and he also has it on his Finalsurge 10k plan in Fartlek form on grass.

Both also agree on the recovery. Daniel's staple is 5-6x1k @a bit faster than 5k, with ~equal recovery. But in his book, he also mentions that 400s could be done too at VO2MAX, but rest would need to be a lot shorter to keep VO2MAX elevated. In the 5x1k you get up to VO2MAX each interval, in the 12x400 you want to rest short so it doesn't drop as much and you can start the next one already close to the max.

Tinman also does 5x600 and 4x800 at VO2MAX in workouts (usually after some threshold or CV), but then lengthens the recovery to a full lap jog.

My experience with VO2MAX intervals isn't great, my breathing is totally out of control and my throat gets dry. But I've probably just done them too fast in the past.

It`s time to "kill" the myth that there is a requirement the rest must be short to keep maxVO2 elevated. The rest must not be short, only individual enough and exact. And as I have told before maxVO2 intervals are not mainly there in the training to raise max02 on it`s own, it`s a total concept where the three most important training factors contribute to the highest individual maxO2 that is possible to reach given by birth and the genes.

Yes, you run your maxVO2 intervals too fast with too less rest time. And you still do a lot of other mistakes.

Lots of posts got deleted, I did not report them except one spam link to a website. Anyway.

I didn't expect the threshold to be this hard, since it was very windy (supportive) and slightly downhill. I thought I would be cruising in 3:20-3:25/k but only managed 3:30/k and died completely on the last 2k when I turned and had headwind in 3:50/k. Then it was hands on the knees. Maybe I wasn't recovered, or I overestimated what I was capable of in these conditions even with the Next%. Anyway, Tinman recommends 4 days easy after a 5k race and 7 days easy after a 10k race before doing a hard workout. So it would have been better to do a slower tempo, around 3:40-3:50/k since I was still in the recovery process, and eliminate the hill sprints.

Btw, the hill sprints or fast intervals at the end of workouts is a standard in Tinman's program. They are fun for me and at decent speed (~4 min mile pace, or 2:30/k). I also think they are easy aerobically, I don't hang on there just get the work done. They also teach how to run fast when tired.

"Hard downhill" more like means fast. 2:50-3:00/k, on soft surface steep downhill. But that's just cruising, I'm tall and heavy so if I don't break I run these paces with no effort. I just mentioned it because maybe the impact on the legs while still recovering from the hard efforts is something. But I would have to actually slow down and break a bit to make it easier on the legs.

Lastly, I'm expecting to feel bad and get hurt during training sometimes. I've come a long way in just a bit over 2 years going from 20:30 5k to 16:15. I'm pushing and "embarrassing" my body and not just doing rest days whenever something happens, which causes more and more adaptions. Even in elite runners, the muscoskeletal system is the major limiting factor. I could have done a rest day instead of grinding out the 6x1k@3:30/k, but even tho I was feeling bad I'm still getting something out of it, I hope. No need to be fully fresh for each workout!

Until you actually tun a 16:15 5k, you haven't run 16:15.

Back again with a quick question,

I know you mentioned a 10k time trial, but would a 8k TT be good to do during base? I know shorter ones are often done, but where I am in base phase I’m much more aerobically there than anaerobically. Im pretty sure it probably doesn’t matter, but I’d figure I’d get your input. Or anyone else’s.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

I also seem to have peaked or at least have way too much speed right now which might have come at the cost of stamina/endurance. Speed is bad if it's being produced metabolically. This was the same in my 1st and 2nd year of running, I would do one big race and then afterwards would get worse and worse.

I'm not sure what you mean about speed being produced metabolically - could you clarify?

a face in the crowd wrote:

Until you actually tun a 16:15 5k, you haven't run 16:15.

I ran 15:46 on 4.88k, with Garmin pace of 3:15/k. That's a 16:15! It's important to use that time as my current PR, otherwise it looks like a massive jump if I run 15:30 in September.

coleiolio wrote:

Back again with a quick question,

I know you mentioned a 10k time trial, but would a 8k TT be good to do during base? I know shorter ones are often done, but where I am in base phase I’m much more aerobically there than anaerobically. Im pretty sure it probably doesn’t matter, but I’d figure I’d get your input. Or anyone else’s.

You want to get an idea of different strengths. Tinman recommends the following:

400m, maybe 800m to evaluate speed

2k-3k TT to evaluate VO2MAX

30-35 min TT (could be 8k or 10k depending on how good you are) to evaluate CV/stamina

60 min TT to evaluate basic endurance

If you only know how strong your CV is, you don't know if you actually improved over all distances. Maybe you lost 400/800m speed and won't be faster over a mile despite having more stamina. Then maybe you need more speed work again to get that back up.

Trail Zealot wrote:

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

I also seem to have peaked or at least have way too much speed right now which might have come at the cost of stamina/endurance. Speed is bad if it's being produced metabolically. This was the same in my 1st and 2nd year of running, I would do one big race and then afterwards would get worse and worse.

I'm not sure what you mean about speed being produced metabolically - could you clarify?

Quoting Tinman here:

"The thing that people tend to not understand is the having more speed can be detrimental; when that speed is dervived metabolically rather than nuerologically. The difference is observed in a couple of situations. Metabolical speed-endurance is revealed in one's 400-800m times; partically in comparision to times over 1500m to 5km. One of th easiest ways of determining metabolic balance is running the 800m, all-out, and the 1600m, all-out. The degree to which a runner covers the latter distance more than 10% slower indicates insufficient aerobic strength-endurance and/or superior anaerobic capacity and power. The greater the exagerartion (the further the speed difference is from the 10% reference point) the greater the anaerobic imbalance or the greater the insufficiency of aerobic strength-endurance."

That's the case for me, my 400/800 ability is/was too strong relative to my stamina/endurance. Since I've trained too hard for way too long, I always produced a lot of lactate and burned glycogen. My speed endurance is good, but not because I'm running with super form and smooth like a sprinter, but because I push hard and my body can still run under highly acidosic conditions.

But my last lactate test revealed, I already produce 2 mmol at 6:30/mi, 3 mmol at 6:00/mi, and 4 mmol at 5:45/mi. At 5:05/mi I already produce 9.5 mmol! So running a 5k at that pace is not a lot of fun.

Better runners already are significantly faster over 2 mmol (which is roughly MP) because they utilize oxygen and fat better and don't need to burn glycogen already at 6:30/mi pace like I do.

High intensity training (5-6x1k@5k pace week after week) made me faster, but not in the right way. There was no way I could have gone close to a 34:09 10k last year, so the recent switch in training to make it more aerobically is already showing dividends. Also I kept, and even improved my speed, due to slower strides focusing on relaxation. I'm not sprinting anymore, and becoming more efficient so the strides are as fast as my former sprints but they are easy with no straining.

Big question is how I do at faster paces (4:50-5:05/mile, 3k-5k pace), since I haven't touched these speeds in like forever.

No , big question is : Will LRP survive this brainless training that already has shown clear signs of overtraining and injury?

Thanks, I’m leaning towards a 10k I think. It’ll play to my advantage where I am at right now

How did that planned 60 min TT go, Phil?

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean about speed being produced metabolically - could you clarify?

Quoting Tinman here:

"The thing that people tend to not understand is the having more speed can be detrimental; when that speed is dervived metabolically rather than nuerologically. The difference is observed in a couple of situations. Metabolical speed-endurance is revealed in one's 400-800m times; partically in comparision to times over 1500m to 5km. One of th easiest ways of determining metabolic balance is running the 800m, all-out, and the 1600m, all-out. The degree to which a runner covers the latter distance more than 10% slower indicates insufficient aerobic strength-endurance and/or superior anaerobic capacity and power. The greater the exagerartion (the further the speed difference is from the 10% reference point) the greater the anaerobic imbalance or the greater the insufficiency of aerobic strength-endurance."

That's the case for me, my 400/800 ability is/was too strong relative to my stamina/endurance. Since I've trained too hard for way too long, I always produced a lot of lactate and burned glycogen. My speed endurance is good, but not because I'm running with super form and smooth like a sprinter, but because I push hard and my body can still run under highly acidosic conditions.

But my last lactate test revealed, I already produce 2 mmol at 6:30/mi, 3 mmol at 6:00/mi, and 4 mmol at 5:45/mi. At 5:05/mi I already produce 9.5 mmol! So running a 5k at that pace is not a lot of fun.

Better runners already are significantly faster over 2 mmol (which is roughly MP) because they utilize oxygen and fat better and don't need to burn glycogen already at 6:30/mi pace like I do.

High intensity training (5-6x1k@5k pace week after week) made me faster, but not in the right way. There was no way I could have gone close to a 34:09 10k last year, so the recent switch in training to make it more aerobically is already showing dividends. Also I kept, and even improved my speed, due to slower strides focusing on relaxation. I'm not sprinting anymore, and becoming more efficient so the strides are as fast as my former sprints but they are easy with no straining.

Big question is how I do at faster paces (4:50-5:05/mile, 3k-5k pace), since I haven't touched these speeds in like forever.[/quote]

I'm trying to read between the lines and translate Tinmans spiel into my language.

It sounds like he's saying: speed being produced metabolically is from your engine working hard, and speed being produced neurologically has to do with economy (smoothness and good form). Basically he's saying you can run fast with bad form by making your engine work super hard, and you can run fast with good form without asking as much from your engine?

gah let me try that again, messed up the formatting I'm trying to read between the lines and translate Tinmans spiel into my language. It sounds like he's saying: "metabolically-produced" speed comes from your engine working hard, and "neurologically-produced" speed has to do with economy (smoothness and good form). Basically he's saying you can run fast with bad form by making your engine work super hard, and you can run fast with good form without asking as much from your engine?[/quote]