Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: does S-L from vancouver series fits with vertical integration graph?

  1. #1
    Member KK400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    106

    Question does S-L from vancouver series fits with vertical integration graph?

    I just made my winter GPP and SPP plans, both for S-L training approach. After a lot of reading and thinking I got confused and I don't think I understand the whole thing. Perhaps I missed sth out.

    According to the vertical integration graph the first training cycle (SPP) lasts for 12 weeks. It starts with accumulation period where the volume of speed work is quite low and rises later when entering the first maxximum weights phase. It keeps rising and peaks at the end of the first max weights phase. After that the first major drop occurs after the second week of the second max weights phase. It rises a bit for the supercompensation purpos again in the maintenance phase and then drops again entering the comp period.

    Based on the S-L graph from Vancouver series the volume of speed work for the first five weeks of the twelve-week long SPP is keept high and then starts to drop and continues dropping until the end of SPP.

    Would appreciate a lot if sb could explain this to me. Thanks in advance!

  2. #2
    Banned TopCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,056
    I don't think they are for the same programme. But the ideas are there. Remember you have to make a programme that will work for you using the basic concepts Charlie left us. That short to long programme is for a highly conditioned athlete with several years training short to long behind them. You would probably have to reduce the volume quite a bit if it is your first time out doing it and also adjust other aspects like where you are going to put the weights etc.

  3. #3
    Member KK400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
    I don't think they are for the same programme. But the ideas are there. Remember you have to make a programme that will work for you using the basic concepts Charlie left us. That short to long programme is for a highly conditioned athlete with several years training short to long behind them. You would probably have to reduce the volume quite a bit if it is your first time out doing it and also adjust other aspects like where you are going to put the weights etc.
    First of all thanks a lot for your answer Topcat!
    I was waiting for the whole day checking the website every 15 minutes to get an answer

    Hope you (or anyone else) won't mind answering a few more questions:

    - How do you mean, they are not the same programme? I always though the vertical integration model graphs being a constant in the CF methods under which the training plan (volumes, intensity, weights...) is constructed.
    I even applied my summer training plan only to the graphs (reduced volumes of course, kept the ratios) in the vertical integ. model. In the end it wasn't exactly S-L or L-S.

    - I am training for two years now. Running 400, need to improve my speed. My Special end is good. Would it be alright to stick to the Vancouver series S-L template and cut the volumes based on my abilities?

    - In that case: is it ok to just cut the volumes and keep the ratios? Will the supercompensation be there like using the vertical integ. model?

    - how about the phases (accumulation, max weights, maintenance...) Does the 12-week mesocycle arrangement stay the same?

  4. #4
    Banned TopCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,056
    I mean the principles are the same but i think the vertical integration graph is reconstructed from the CFTS which was written 10 years before the S-L Van graphics so they do not necessarily relate to the same programme. Just because it shows something happening in week 10 on the vertical integration does not mean it relates to what is happening on week 10 of the Van graphics. However as the intensity of the runs in the Van graphics goes up you can infer that the volume of jumps must be going down and you probably aren't doing max strength etc...

    You could try cutting volumes but keeping ratios and see how it goes but ultimatly you have to fit it to your situation. If you need to do more speed work or tempo etc then the ratios would change. The thing about these graphs is that they help to illustrate principles NOT provide a programme to follow. That's why Charlie never put out SPP2 because people just kept copying the SPP1 and saying "it doesn't work". Of course it doesn't work in a lot of cases because it's written for a fictitious athlete to illustrate key principles. However, the underpinning principles do work once you identify what you need to do to improve. It's like supplementation. You feel tired all the time so you take creatine but it doesn't help. So you come to the conclusion that creatine doesn't work but in reality you are anaemic and in fact what you really needed was iron!

  5. #5
    Member KK400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    106
    Good written, good example! To sum it up, you gave me the answer of the highest quality
    Thanks a lot! Really appreciate it!

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
    I mean the principles are the same but i think the vertical integration graph is reconstructed from the CFTS which was written 10 years before the S-L Van graphics so they do not necessarily relate to the same programme. Just because it shows something happening in week 10 on the vertical integration does not mean it relates to what is happening on week 10 of the Van graphics. However as the intensity of the runs in the Van graphics goes up you can infer that the volume of jumps must be going down and you probably aren't doing max strength etc...

    You could try cutting volumes but keeping ratios and see how it goes but ultimatly you have to fit it to your situation. If you need to do more speed work or tempo etc then the ratios would change. The thing about these graphs is that they help to illustrate principles NOT provide a programme to follow. That's why Charlie never put out SPP2 because people just kept copying the SPP1 and saying "it doesn't work". Of course it doesn't work in a lot of cases because it's written for a fictitious athlete to illustrate key principles. However, the underpinning principles do work once you identify what you need to do to improve. It's like supplementation. You feel tired all the time so you take creatine but it doesn't help. So you come to the conclusion that creatine doesn't work but in reality you are anaemic and in fact what you really needed was iron!
    Well said!

  7. #7
    Member John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Kiwiland
    Posts
    4,400
    Quote Originally Posted by TopCat View Post
    That's why Charlie never put out SPP2 because people just kept copying the SPP1 and saying "it doesn't work".
    Good post and while he didn't put out SPP2 he did provide an excellent idea of structuring it in the SPP download
    http://www.charliefrancis.com/store/...p?idproduct=48

  8. #8
    Much of the work we put into the illustrations/graphs on planning were based on Charlie's actual 1987 preparation for Ben (i.e. vertical integration graphic). The graphics produced more recently (i.e. S-L and L-S) were more conceptual in nature to illustrate a hypothetical training plan and progression.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    750
    First of all, I hope I'm not threadjacking.

    I am also trying to plan a Short to Long program and I am a masters guy who only does two speed days. I'm going to be as specific as possible here!

    I run the 60m and 200m indoors, so I'm wondering how do I fit in what I need from the third speed day (runs with restricted recovery)?

    Let's take a specific example from the Vancouver Short to Long graph.

    In week 1, it suggests 3x4x60 for Monday and Friday speed days. I'll probably do 3x(4x50m) on the Monday, for example.

    On my second speed day in week 1, it calls for 2x3x(20 E/ 20F/ 20E), which I would probably cut to 1x 3 to 4 (20E/ 20F/ 20E).

    Instead of squeezing in 3x(4x50m) on the second speed day in week 1 after the EFE work, could I just do something like 3x200m or 2x300m with limited recovery? Would that be tolerable?

    Or, should I consider moving the incomplete rest work to Sunday early on and doing it as hills?

    I'm assuming I'll need something bordering on SE runs towards late GPP / early SPP on my second speed day.

    I'm 36, tall and slim (possible low work tolerance?), PB 7.98/12.49/25.04 for the 60m/100m/200m.

  10. #10
    If you are doing 3 x 200 with limited recovery, that's not really speed work - is it? So why would that type of work be inserted on a "speed day"? That would be considered intensive tempo work. It raises some concerns particularly if you are replacing 50-60m sprints with runs that are not remotely similar in purpose.

    If you truly are doing a short-to-long program, then do a s-to-l program. If you are deciding to do a "mixed" program, you will have to rearrange the program to fit your arrangement. Taking Charlie's s-to-l program and "dropping in" different types of runs is not a good idea. I have used runs out to 200-300m, but with full recovery and treated as true Special Endurance runs. But in that arrangement, we were doing two pure speed days (i.e. 30-60m) and one SE day (200-300m).

    It really comes down to what you are trying to achieve. Are you trying to build your ability to attain, improve and maintain your maximum velocity capabilities? Or, are you more concerned with building general endurance qualities and lactic tolerance?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •