First time speed Endurance

[komy]

@Charlie_Francis

With the short break 60s you should be running with a goal of consistency in mind. With short breaks and early in training, you should prob start with a 30m accel- at which point you maintain the speed you’ve reached.

so charlie is it gradual, like the following week or two would you accelerate to 40m and hold then 50m and hold then flat 60s???

could this be done to any other distance than 60m? cause this type of training has always been referred to 60m.
thnx

[Charlie_Francis]

@komy

so charlie is it gradual, like the following week or two would you accelerate to 40m and hold then 50m and hold then flat 60s???

could this be done to any other distance than 60m? cause this type of training has always been referred to 60m.
thnx

Yes- and such an approach can be used to regulate the speed of Special Endurance runs of any distance.

[Goat]

@Charlie_Francis

Yes, we did begin to use split 60s from 1985 on in phase one (indoor) and usually for part of phase 2.
You can control the relative stress of these runs by determining how far into the runs you’ll accelerate (and what break you’ll take), relative to how far you accelerate during pure speed work. I wil be releasing some new material shortly including graphs of a long-to-short and a short-to-long program, which should help you visualize this better.

When you’re describing how far you accelerate and then maintaining are you talking about 100% acceleration? Example - say you’re doing 30m accel (@100%) + 30m maintain = 60m. 4 x (4 x 60m) 2’ rest between reps and 10’ set break. Does this mean that out of each 60m, your accelling at 100% effort for the first 30m?

Thanks

Sorry about my last post as I was getting ahead of myself as it’s only Sept

[Charlie_Francis]

@Goat

When you’re describing how far you accelerate and then maintaining are you talking about 100% acceleration? Example - say you’re doing 30m accel (@100%) + 30m maintain = 60m. 4 x (4 x 60m) 2’ rest between reps and 10’ set break. Does this mean that your out of each 60m your accelling t 100% effort for the first 30m?

Thanks

Sorry about my last post as I was getting ahead of myself as it’s only Sept

Yes, the accel is at 100% of your CURRENT relaxed capability.

[Goat]

@Charlie_Francis

Yes, the accel is at 100% of your CURRENT relaxed capability.

Thank you for your reply.

Charlie, don’t you consider that alot of 30’s? Actually 480m worth! Did you ever think that this might be too much when you were developing your program? Don’t get me wrong, IT WORKED! I’m just wondering when you switched over to this type of program in 1985 if you ever went “wow…this is alot of short speed work AND I’m not sure about this???”

It seems like alot especially when you consider that you setup pure speed work on M/W/F and did this Spd End on the Sat. Correct me if I’m wrong please. I will say one thing that does strike me right away. Considering repition is the key to mastery in any skill, your athlete’s were ingrained with the acceleration pattern. My guess is that they probably couldn’t get out of that pattern even if they tried (not that they would).

Thanks

[Charlie_Francis]

@Goat

Thank you for your reply.

Charlie, don’t you consider that alot of 30’s? Actually 480m worth! Did you ever think that this might be too much when you were developing your program? Don’t get me wrong, IT WORKED! I’m just wondering when you switched over to this type of program in 1985 if you ever went “wow…this is alot of short speed work AND I’m not sure about this???”

It seems like alot especially when you consider that you setup pure speed work on M/W/F and did this Spd End on the Sat. Correct me if I’m wrong please. I will say one thing that does strike me right away. Considering repition is the key to mastery in any skill, your athlete’s were ingrained with the acceleration pattern. My guess is that they probably couldn’t get out of that pattern even if they tried (not that they would).

Thanks

Why is that so tough if you’re relaxed- especially if you’re used to all out 300s

[Goat]

@Charlie_Francis

Why is that so tough if you’re relaxed- especially if you’re used to all out 300s

It would seem that the alactic speed endurance split runs (4 x (4 x 60m)) would be more CNS taxing than 2 x 300m max?

I was just curious to know when you made these changes if you ever said to yourself “I’m not quite sure how this is going to work???” Even the great ones aren’t ALWAYS sure OR maybe they are which makes them…GREAT! I’m not in that position…yet!

[Goat]

@Charlie_Francis

Why is that so tough if you’re relaxed- especially if you’re used to all out 300s

It would seem that the alactic speed endurance split runs (4 x (4 x 60m)) would be more CNS taxing than 2 x 300m max?

I was just curious to know when you made these changes if you ever said to yourself “I’m not quite sure how this is going to work???” Even the great ones aren’t ALWAYS sure OR maybe they are which makes them…GREAT! I’m not in that position…yet!

[martn76]

@Goat

It would seem that the alactic speed endurance split runs (4 x (4 x 60m)) would be more CNS taxing than 2 x 300m max?

I was just curious to know when you made these changes if you ever said to yourself “I’m not quite sure how this is going to work???” Even the great ones aren’t ALWAYS sure OR maybe they are which makes them…GREAT! I’m not in that position…yet!

Charlie’s split 60 workouts I think are backed up by research and findings made by Italian physiologists, E Locatelli and Belloti and the use of such a regime by other successful athletes. Mennea used the same type of track work to run 19.72 secs and 10.04 secs, the difference being that the volume was suited to 200m training (5x5x60m averaging 6.5-6.6 secs 3-4 mins 8-10 mins). Borzov’s training was full of this type of training and volume. I do not know much about the East Germans but I guess it was very similar. I guess he probably knew that it would work.

I hope I am not stepping on Charlie’s toes by answering this!!

[Charlie_Francis]

@martn76

Charlie’s split 60 workouts I think are backed up by research and findings made by Italian physiologists, E Locatelli and Belloti and the use of such a regime by other successful athletes. Mennea used the same type of track work to run 19.72 secs and 10.04 secs, the difference being that the volume was suited to 200m training (5x5x60m averaging 6.5-6.6 secs 3-4 mins 8-10 mins). Borzov’s training was full of this type of training and volume. I do not know much about the East Germans but I guess it was very similar. I guess he probably knew that it would work.

I hope I am not stepping on Charlie’s toes by answering this!!

Not at all. This is very true of the Italian system (though often 4 sets of 6 x 60) There is a lactic componant to this training based on partial recoveries and this will be covered extansively in the new material to be released soon. Partial recovery work is more CNS intensive and lower in LA production than continuous longer runs. Ben’s volumes were high though never as high as Mennea’s, though at higher speeds. The Italian Volumes, often not believed but confirmed to me by Pavoni in 1985, were too high to be optimal for the 100m, but ideal for the 200m. Borzov’s training was very flexibly and rotated from pure speed to speed endurance according to tests performed in training.
When you see the new graphic comparisons between Short to Long and Long to Short programs, you will see the benefits and suitability of each, and how each accomplishes its goals with surprisingly similar training volumes,
STAY TUNED!

[AUT_71]

[QUOTE=Charlie Francis]When you see the new graphic comparisons between Short to Long and Long to Short programs, you will see the benefits and suitability of each, and how each accomplishes its goals with surprisingly similar training volumes,
QUOTE]

And the mentioned graphic comparisons will be shown on the SPP DVD to come, or where? Did I miss the announcement? Thx.

[Charlie_Francis]

@AUT_71

[QUOTE=Charlie Francis]When you see the new graphic comparisons between Short to Long and Long to Short programs, you will see the benefits and suitability of each, and how each accomplishes its goals with surprisingly similar training volumes,
QUOTE]

And the mentioned graphic comparisons will be shown on the SPP DVD to come, or where? Did I miss the announcement? Thx.

This will be out in E-Book format first, with supplememtary material like the SPP DVD to follow

[martn76]

@Charlie_Francis

This will be out in E-Book format first, with supplememtary material like the SPP DVD to follow

Charlie,

Do you have a specific launch date?

[gloopzilla]

@Charlie_Francis

Ben’s volumes were high though never as high as Mennea’s, though at higher speeds. The Italian Volumes, often not believed but confirmed to me by Pavoni in 1985, were too high to be optimal for the 100m, but ideal for the 200m. Borzov’s training was very flexibly and rotated from pure speed to speed endurance according to tests performed in training.

Charlie - Does the shorter distance allow these to be done in phase 1 at all - if not when during the season would they be introduced ?

Don’t mean to seem impatient if it’s all on the new release

[Charlie_Francis]

@gloopzilla

Charlie - Does the shorter distance allow these to be done in phase 1 at all - if not when during the season would they be introduced ?

Don’t mean to seem impatient if it’s all on the new release

In Canada, it is ideal to move through from shorter runs as all of phase one’s SPP will be indoors

[Charlie_Francis]

@martn76

Charlie,

Do you have a specific launch date?

I’m going as fast as I can but the project keeps expanding as there is so much info and I want to make this as user friendly as possible. I’m pretty sure I can get it done in the next 4 weeks

[ontheball]

@Charlie_Francis

In Canada, it is ideal to move through from shorter runs as all of phase one’s SPP will be indoors

How would you feel about speed progressing short to long and SE progressing long to short within same macrocycle?

In lieu of SE progressing long to short, would 4x150 to 3x150 to 2x150 at increasing intensity be just as effective for a 100m specialist?

Thanks

[aln]

So, this type of work would serve as a bridge between GPP and SPP? It looks to me like it fills a double function of SE and as an introduction of max v (ie wouldn’t all these be considered flying 30’s with 30m. accel zone?). So, would flying runs be introduced after this and not in the same period? I’m now seeing why I was so confused when switching from long to short to short to long, in particular about the SPP. It seems like there is a window where either approach will work the same areas and maybe even have similar workout. Can’t wait for the new book.

[Charlie_Francis]

@aln

So, this type of work would serve as a bridge between GPP and SPP? It looks to me like it fills a double function of SE and as an introduction of max v (ie wouldn’t all these be considered flying 30’s with 30m. accel zone?). So, would flying runs be introduced after this and not in the same period? I’m now seeing why I was so confused when switching from long to short to short to long, in particular about the SPP. It seems like there is a window where either approach will work the same areas and maybe even have similar workout. Can’t wait for the new book.

Yes, it can be confusing, but I hope the new material will help sort things out as clearly as possible. Remember that accel and SE work in REVERSE in some ways. In other words, if you can accel for 20m and have sufficient endurance, you can run a world record for 600m, 30m and record at 400m, 40m/200 and, finally, as far as possible and 100m.
One of the main differences in the approaches is that with the short to long the EMPHASIS is on the shorter work. This does not mean that the rest is ignored! Stay tuned.

[AUT_71]

@Charlie_Francis

This will be out in E-Book format first, with supplememtary material like the SPP DVD to follow

Cool, THX.