Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: SPP1 Question on SE alternative

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,591

    Re: SPP1 Question on SE alternative

    Brett,

    The Vancouver slides show 3 days of Ben's program, The first block of weeks was 2 days SE (repeat 60s with gradually increasing intensity limits) and one day max velocity work, like Easy fast easy and finish drills (i.e. flying 20s). I would suggest if doing short to long, potentially doing a 10 day micro cycle (vs. CF's 7 day), and potentially going to 40 or 50m. Olu did 40s and 50s and ran 9.85. It depends on the athlete's ability.

    If incorporating a longer day of SE, I'd suggest fitness be in place during GPP. Based on the athlete, Charlie did program that in the early training phases as well.

    I can't remember where in the forum, but PJ suggested training from both ends simultaneously, where tempo progressively becomes SE, and accels eventually become speed and then SE.

  2. #12

    Re: SPP1 Question on SE alternative

    A hypothetical question I have is what might Charlie's short to long program looked like had he lived and trained in Arizona?

    Sometimes I wonder if all the energy system analysis is even worth discussing. If one is somewhat enlightened, you should see simple, logical workouts and simple, logical progressions. Assuming I'm working under the umbrella of a sound technical model, do I care where the energy production comes from? I just want to go from A to B as fast as possible. What about all the various strength and elastic qualities that helped out along the way? In the end, I think athletes' preparation simply needs to be in the ballpark. At some point won't racing and mother nature handle the rest?

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    181

    Re: SPP1 Question on SE alternative

    Quote Originally Posted by ollie View Post
    A hypothetical question I have is what might Charlie's short to long program looked like had he lived and trained in Arizona?

    ?
    There's mention of Marion Jones's training in one of the videos where Charlie Francis discussed it as Modified short to long..... she did 90s in sets of 3 I think? 3 by 3 ..... I don't know if there was an accel limit or not. But that was in north Carolina , which isn't as hot as the southwest, but I've lived there and it's pretty mild in the winter. Maybe it could have been longer runs, maybe the athletes wouldn't like them that far - 90 meters

    Sprinters are biased in their personalities when it comes to anything long, at least I've found. They think anything over around 100m =punishment. I think there's a psychological aspect to training that's seldom spoken amongst coaches, but athletes have to like the way you train em'. I think the mindset of many sprinters is to prefer stuff like 60m reps. They stay interested that way. This is not absolute, but I really believe personality dictates how athletes "like" or "dislike" it, and that blends into how much effort they give. I haven't found a sprinter yet begging me to throw in 150s or 200s. So I'd say the 60's or 90's seem like more "fun" to sprinters. That's just my experience.

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,619

    Re: SPP1 Question on SE alternative

    Another difference to consider: 250m [20+] vs. 4x60m [20+].

    The total volume is about the same. However, with the split runs you're performing four accelerations versus only one. That might be more beneficial for a S-L program that places more emphasis on developing acceleration in SPP1, especially if you're only doing two speed workouts a week. Just food for thought. It's times like this that I really miss Charlie.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    487

    Re: SPP1 Question on SE alternative

    Quote Originally Posted by ollie View Post
    A hypothetical question I have is what might Charlie's short to long program looked like had he lived and trained in Arizona?

    Sometimes I wonder if all the energy system analysis is even worth discussing. If one is somewhat enlightened, you should see simple, logical workouts and simple, logical progressions. Assuming I'm working under the umbrella of a sound technical model, do I care where the energy production comes from? I just want to go from A to B as fast as possible. What about all the various strength and elastic qualities that helped out along the way? In the end, I think athletes' preparation simply needs to be in the ballpark. At some point won't racing and mother nature handle the rest?
    I think for coaches is good to know what is actually happening in your body while running in the specific area. Sure all the important qualities should be developed through the whole year (ish). I think understanding of the subject re: energy system (physiology) is very important. So my answer is yes! I do care where the energy is coming from.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    487

    Re: SPP1 Question on SE alternative

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Another difference to consider: 250m [20+] vs. 4x60m [20+].

    The total volume is about the same. However, with the split runs you're performing four accelerations versus only one. That might be more beneficial for a S-L program that places more emphasis on developing acceleration in SPP1, especially if you're only doing two speed workouts a week. Just food for thought. It's times like this that I really miss Charlie.
    Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know Charlie said himself if he had an access to the better outdoor condition his program might have been looking totally different. Charlie maximised his environment that's it. I think that there is place for every run in the training program.

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,619

    Re: SPP1 Question on SE alternative

    Quote Originally Posted by wermouth View Post
    Correct me if I am wrong but as far as I know Charlie said himself if he had an access to the better outdoor condition his program might have been looking totally different. Charlie maximised his environment that's it. I think that there is place for every run in the training program.
    I honestly can't remember. Ange might be able to answer that question. But I do believe the split runs were largely to avoid using the banked indoor track.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    372

    Re: SPP1 Question on SE alternative

    Such interesting possibilities to consider

  9. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,619

    Re: SPP1 Question on SE alternative

    As Charlie said many, many times, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

  10. #20
    Administrator Angela Coon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,768

    Re: SPP1 Question on SE alternative

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I honestly can't remember. Ange might be able to answer that question. But I do believe the split runs were largely to avoid using the banked indoor track.

    Split runs were to avoid using the banked indoor track yes.
    They were also used to favor the assets or asset an athlete has.
    The individual rules don't forget.
    Yes, There is always more than one way to skin a cat.
    Charlie was above anything else an innovator. Creative , cost effective and he believed anything could be done with the desire to do so. He also was not a fan of " No".

Posting Permissions

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