Another question guys...

I have the CFTS, Speedtrap, and I also have the Vancouver video + graphs. Yes, I WILL be buying all the rest of the products but I can’t help but satisfy my curiosity.

Now here is what I don’t understand: As time when on, why did the speed endurance workouts change so much?

For example, in the CFTS, a sample workout would be something like 2 (4x40) and 2(150). Where as in the later years with the Vancouver workouts, it would be something like 2 (4x40) and 2 (350/600m!) for L to S, or 2(4x40) and 2(4x60) for short to long.

What happened?

Charlie got more experience and was flexible enough to change his programming from where he was in the 80’s, perhaps?

It is hard to compare 1 specific session with another without the full context. For example Tuesday Week 10 L-S graph is 4 x 30, 4 x 30 blocks 2 x 150, 5 x 30 running A’s which is very similar to the example you gave ex CFTS. That said Charlie always said you do what is required for that athlete at that point in time and was reluctant to share too many specific sessions as they easily get seen as absolutes rather than examples or concepts.

Is it any different really? Isn’t the GENERAL END character of the content of a training session and hence the direction towards which the system is moved by a certain set of stimuli more important than the specifics of how that is achieved? Why getting lost already in the stimulus side of the equation when what matters in reality is only the RESPONSE one?
The GENERAL END character of ALL training stimuli was maybe the most precious lesson Charlie taught me over the years,and what I find universally applies to any training system really.
Let’s think of how we judge a training program we go through:we judge it from the END RESULT. Do we really know which stimulus in the program eventually lead us to a positive or a negative result? No,we do not. We most of the times just politely guess.

I could be way off but suggest the earlier workouts was aimed at where Ben was at that tiime (below 10s) where the later work is aimed more towards the development of athletes Charlie was helping at the time…

A lot of beginning (for want of a better word) athletes top up the training program set for them and it is only after several years they stop doing so.

I would start with the Vancouver workouts and progress to the CFTS when ready. Having the full CF system and comparing them can only be an advantage.

wasn’t it Charlie who said nothing is set in concrete.

Which Vancouver illustration are you referring to?

2 (350/600m) is not speed endurance it’s special endurance. Perhaps you misread a graph?

That’s understandable.

I’m referring to the 2004 training progression long to short. It’s white and light blue. Special endurance 1 starts at 300m and the special endurance 2 starts at 600m.

Then if you look at the short to long training progression special endurance starts at 4x (4x60) that is to be done twice a week.

Thanks for the info.

I think it does, my body does not seem to be able to build solid endurance from, say, 3 (2x60). I do better with 2 (150).

Thanks guys for the feedback!

I totally agree, I can perform 4x4x60 vs 200-180-150 or 2-3x150’s and my body responds much better to the longer runs for speed/special endurance effects. This year I’ll perform 4 weeks of speed endurance work before entering my indoor season.