US Collegiate programs tend to be on the brutal side. The 400m hurdler in question was, and still is a workaholic, so he would always try to do more. If the previous coach said 2x600m he would try to do 3 or 4. If the coach said no to increased volume he would run them below the assigned pace. The problem was that his running mechanics were crap. He trained with me briefly in 94-95 and all I did was try to clean up his sprinting and hurdling. The only endurance work was ExT like stuff. This made him nervous after a couple of months and he returned to his college coach and got slower. Going into 95-96 we had a very good “sit-down” and stuck with the program for the next two years. His dropped from 50.84 to 49.73, while working 40 hours a week. Make no mistake, he still trained hard, but most of it was ExT. He loved it because he felt like he was being challenged due to the high volumes. I also had a even more talented female 400m hurdler who left at the same time for the same reasons, but didn’t come back, working her way through 3 more coaches before fading away. My perception is that with her a L-to-S would have worked better as she was the same height as the male hurdler (5’10") and not as elastic or naturally fast.
This begs the question, other than climatic and facility questions, what other factors are involved in deciding which plan to embark on?