Thank you very much! Now things are more clear, just still makes me confused with your last sentences of explanation, maybe I misunderstood something:
“Developing athletes with less strength may very well improve more readily on a long-to-short program because of their reduced power output. And, they do need to develop a base of general fitness and strength. They may have lower CNS tolerance, but it doesn’t matter because they can’t training at a high enough output to create that level of fatigue. Remember, much of Ben’s initial training was long-to-short in structure.”
For sure developing athletes will improve on a long-to-short, but wouldn’t be better start using more short-to-long for better adaptation and CNS tolerance for later stages of training? B/c you said " Your ability to tolerate high outputs will develop over time as you build a base of high-intensity work beneath you. However, you are also building a base of low intensity work that will help you to recover more readily from high output workouts/races (assuming you are following an appropriate training program and progression). This is why Charlie liked the short-to-long approach, which included high-intensity runs throughout the year (building a large base of speed work). His contention was that a long-to-short program included a lower overall volume of speed work (and less exposure to speed throughout the year) and, thus, made the athlete more susceptible to injury and CNS overload in the latter stages of training."
Low intensity, strength base no doubt, but why sometimes it’s better to use long-to-short program for developing athletes? Such program offers longer periods of special endurance and SE workouts and I’m not sure how it could be better for developing athletes and how it builds the base for high intensity work for later stages of training.