Hey All,
The question that remains most unanswered for me when I study Charlie’s material (and other’s contributions on here) is how much change should there exist between weeks (microcycles) in intensity and volume. How much performance change is there?
His most direct answer was in the Inside SPP series, where he said that the speed curve should be improving from weeks 1-3, but should stop and even drop in week 4. This makes sense as throughout w1-3, you are piling on more and more work (from both % height and volume-breadth).
Here are some questions I hope to discuss in this thread:
What if our athletes don’t improve as this system suggests (linear from 1-3, and slight drop in 4)? Would Charlie say to keep piling on work, using volume to gain the learning at higher intensification? The fly-20m is the least likely exercise to obtain PBs, and by that nature everything is then submaximal. Would speed gain still be exhibited when a week 2 session performance of 2x3reps @ 2.00s pace becomes 2x4reps @ 2.00s pace (+2 reps at same speed).
The flip side to this is easy—if the athlete exceeds the growth positively beyond what you had expected, just plant in recovery sessions/weeks after the supramaximal performance. His famous examples of cutting down the workouts when his athletes PB, as there is no more need to do more as the quality increase is proven.
But what to do when athletes aren’t growing at the rate you need them to according to the 3 week intensification schedule? Do you have to cut down workload or increase recovery measures such that the athlete fits the model? Another example from his in CFTS is his talk on weights (p.59): when you see a 1week plateau in any training element, you must change the program. Weights were backed off with certain athletes as speed was plateauing.
I like that example as it gives a hard example of how you must prioritize speed at the expense of every non-sprinting element. It gives the solution for what to do when athletes aren’t improving to your plan.
Thoughts?