Invitation to CLJACKSON | Debate

An open invitation to CLJACKSON to voice his opinion regarding CF protocols.

For all of the CFTS systems’ worth. When taken as a whole there appears to be components missing from the system. This for many leads to having to troubleshoot, or worse- injury rather than better performances on the track.
For starters CFTS is written in a comprehensive question and answer format leading to insights into elite sprinting not found anywhere even to date. The problem arises when the manual is presented as a system that can be “duplicated”. It should rather be presented as a reference guide as to how Francis’ sprint group acheived world record success. One of the most serious criticisms within this text is that there is little emphasis that these athletes were privy to a bevy of resources not likely to be obtained by even the best collegiate sprinters, let alone the average customer. This is likened to leading a reader into believing they could compete in the Tour de France without a $10,000 bike, and world class training team, and state of the art facilities.
CF athelete’s benefited from daily massage, ems, supplements and all the rest. CF states that the massage alone allowed for a 40% increase in high-intensity training. This must be an aggregate rather than specific to a few athletes. Add to that supplements, full-time training, and we can conservatively estimate an additional 10% increase in performance or tolerance of high intensity training. Thus the programs listed in CFTS as templates and of which the recent templates are based on (GPP) should be adjusted accordingly. This radically alters the chracteristics of the workout volume and structure. This translates into training, halfed over 3 days or a reduction to 2 days a week with additional reductions further still. This difference is a MAJOR driver in the design of the program. This should also be emphasized-If you cannot recreate this enviroment, you should very, very conservatively approach this volume starting at 30% of that listed in CFTS.
I have pulled my hamstring 5 times trying to conservatively approach approximately 60% of the volume listed in CFTS.
Emphasis should be placed more on the principles of the program-S to L, 95%<, 0-60m, stop if feel slow or in danger of injury, Listen to your body. Perhaps presenting a range of templates from C-Carded Athletes to Ben Johnson would allow those basing their program design on CFTS to detect the subtlities within the CF system. Perhaps addressing what may go wrong and how to correct the problems is callled for i.e.-Cannot do more that (2x4)-30m without tightness preventing completion of the 60m segment of the workout.
In summary there are MAJOR drivers or assumptions that are critical to any of CF’s top level athlete’s performance’s that cannot be recreated circumstantially by part-time athletes which call for signifigant adjustments to the CFTS on a fundemental level. Perhaps it is the principles of the program rather than the aim of the products that should be emphasized.
Secondly the recent releases that elaborate on the system have been released with a Vancover here and a Med Ball there rather than logically and Sytematically. Why not:

Fundementals of CFTS
SPP1 and SPP2
Competitive Phase
Taper Phase
Post Season and Recovery
Troubleshooting and Modification

Many Athlete’s are still waiting for the SPP DVD let alone the Taper Phase DVD. If you haven’t completed a proper SPP phase during the year, when its time to taper you’ll be robbed of many of its benefits anyway. As it is now, Customers can purchase some affiliates material-black books and whatnot, several seminars that get into coaching theory,several isolated workout DVD’s that don’t seem to fit neatly into the CFTS, A GPP DVD and now a Taper Phase video. I would think the jumping around would be a detriment to the Coach as well as the Athlete. How about working with a college level sprinter from A-Z and recording the yearly progression in a systematic way?

What is it that customers want?  I can guarantee that the more systematic release of the aforementioned DVD products would overwhelmingly outsale what is currently available hands down.  I myself will not be buying the Taper DVD until all of this makes more sense and certainly not after working out the kinks of a SPP program I've devised for myself based on my readings.  This I believe echos the sentiments of many of the members who have tried to realize the benefits of the CFTS.

As far i have have seen. There is a dvd on strength work and start tech.
Then there is a dvd on how to run your Gpp program
then there is a dvd on how to run your Spp program -
There is a dvd now on competition phase - 10 day taper
there is a dvd on med ball work
There is the CFTS book
there is this web site

To me, i think everything is in place!!??
Gpp is basically written out for you, but still, its only a template - cut back if your getting sore or injured
Spp1 is basically written out, again, its been said to cut back if your not a pretty quick runner - sub 10.6 or so? Cut back a quarter or a third
Spp 2 cant be written out like spp1, After all, how did you respond to spp1, what are your individaul strenghts n weaknesses? However, the basic Format template is still there.
Comp phase, now finally has been produced to enhance our knowledge of the 10day taper. Extra info on comp phases can be found either in the CFTS or here
Weights, med ball, hills, drills, arm action etc etc are all detailed.
If your not elite, cut back in volume. The volume number is not set in stone or a holy grail. However, the template is there for anybody of any level to follow.

More points.
Tens machines are cheaps as now. If you cant affort, get a part time job for like 2weeks and you’ll have one.
Massage, Do it yourself for most, and get Parents/girlfriend to do some too. At least it is something.

The problem is that the GPP and SPP programs are so far beyond the levels of most of the audience that simply lowering the volume isn’t just it, you have to lower the frequency, intensity, # of elements, etc. I have seen the programs of people successfully implementing CFTS and it is extremely different in application than what the GPP and SPP graphs show. There are rarely more than 2 speed days and rarely over 300m of total speed work. If you look at the SPP graphs (from vanc. dvd), there doesn’t seem to be any real way to use those graphs as an example if you can only tolerate these kinds of volumes. That isn’t to say the graphs can’t help, but it takes some serious coaching talent to be able to adjust them to such varying performance levels.

On a side note, I haven’t faired well in programs non-CFTS based or at least not in programs without similar principles. I do think though that there is some incomplete information in at least how to apply it to individuals of varying levels. For example, CFTS and some forum posts say that people in the 11.0 or higher area cannot really tax their CNS, yet so many people in this zone overtrain like hell and really do tax their CNS or something that is causing crap performance. It may not be the same as an elite sprinter, but it is something and it is significant.

I thought you said the gpp program wasnt that bad.

Over the years I’ve purchased many book, tapes and DVDs hoping they had the answer to my running and coaching problems. Needless to say, they never did, and I was always disapointed. So I do understand CLJACKSON04 frustration and can empathize with him.
As a athlete I had problems using CFTS. I did not know a lot of the things I needed to know to make it work. For example, I was a 10.5 sprinter using a 10 day taper. I was also running 150m in 15.7 and taking 25min breaks( lol I was elite in my head). I think I would have done better as an athlete if things were lined out systematically the way CLJACKSONO4 recommended.
However, as a coach I have no problems with the way things are presented or the order in how they come. I study the ideas, I take what I want and I leave or adjust the rest according to my needs.
This is the thing; coaches are happy with new ideas and talking training theory and putting parts or an athletic puzzle together, but athletes want no part in this. Athletes want programs, period.

Very well put.

I agree with what THEONE says above, as athletes we just want someone to just tell us what to do and the produce results. However, for most of us who are unlucky enough to train with high quality coaches, we sometimes have to think for ourselves. I find that this is the beauty of this website. Charlie helps us understand his training methods so that we can create programs for ourselves or others that are meant for us and not a 9.79 runner. With that understanding hopefully we can perform to our op most potential. I for one like to think and know what im doing. If you dont and just want to show up and be told what to do, then get up and move to a place where thats available.

If you want results dont blame others, just do whatever it is you need to do to achieve your goals.

Had you never pulled it before? Were you growing (e.g. 16-19)? On a basic level, if something is pulling it is because the force applied is not spread across a n area but rather “funnelled” though one place - where the stress is too high and the structure must give. To pull something 5 times suggests you weren’t just “unlucky” but instead have an underlying problem that ultimately needs to be addressed. No matter what system you follow you will have issues because you are going to have to compete at maximum intensity where danger is very real.

Another major problem with HS injuries is that you don’t prepare the tissue to withstand the force before you subject it to the forces. This is simply a planning issue and is easily seen in the rash of HS injuries that occur during L-S programmes when the athlete changes to fast track work but have not been prepared for speed.

I hope you can resolve your issue but it unless it is a planning issue i’m not sure what you can do other than get a really good therapist to work with you.

Totally true, I use 2 days of high intensity 3 of low and total volume is planned for 400m but usually drops below that because people can’t handle it. However, recently some of my athletes have progressed (after 2-3 years in the programme) to higher volumes (500m in some case but still 2x a week). As with starting anything the volume you can handle changes after a few years of practice.

The thing is to be a good athelte you need a good coach, if you are trying to do both yourself you are going to find it very difficult. If you are really serious then you are going to have to move your entire life to be with one - this is the sacrifice of trying to get to the olympics or win a high end meda.

If you arn’t prepare to do this but want to train yourself then the place to start is fitness. Under these circumstances the workout dvds (Med ball, Drills/Power Speed) are great for the athlete because they give you ideas for low intensity (mostly) workouts that can easily be incorporated into almost any training plan. Stick with what you know works and what you can tollerate for the high intensity work and just progressivly improve your conditioning.

Exactly, as an athlete you need a good coach - period. You only get one shot as an athlete so if you want it make the sacrefice and go find yourself someone who knows what they are doing.

As a coach this website is excellent because you have access to one of the greatest coaches in history and can ask him questions (or other members who use his system) if you arn’t sure of something. There is nowhere else you can do this - short of getting a job with one of the great practicing coaches and doing it day to day.

Agreed, as i have athletels that fall into this area. I think it is often that they are not fit enough to deal with fast sessions so close together. They cannot recovery between reps, set s or days. You have to decrease frequency and often intensity. For example i probably do 40-55% of my work at 95% intensity rather than 95-100% all the time.

The other reason they have problems is because they have other things in thier lives like school, relationships etc and little time off. Perhaps the biggest cause of overtraining is what is happening outside of your training.

GREAT thread with a lot of excellent points.

One of the main ones being the use of CFTS as an athlete versus as a coach. Maybe that is the thing, as a coach you can be totally objective and the information is able to be implemented more effectively because of that. Charlie is constantly saying (in posts and on DVD’s) about amending the session to fit the athletes condition that day often this is based on footstrike and body position (med ball work) signals the athlete themselves can’t detect. You have a plan but it needs to change to fit the circumstances.

It is always a no win situation when templates are provided. The temptation is to take them at face value and implement exactly as is. If you don’t supply them you get lambasted.

Maybe part of the issue is that L-S is seen as the poor cousin yet maybe that method (amended to suit the athlete) is more appropriate to a larger number than currently use it…I would be interested in views from others.

TC personally I would like to see more specific details of your programming if possible.

Maybe instead of struggling with things we should be investing in telephone consultations with Charlie :confused:

I think a lot of the problem is that people expect to be spoon-fed CF training programmes. The whole idea of this site and the CF products is to give the users access to CF’s ideas and then for the users to develop their own training programmes from the information presented.

How can CF provide programmes when he has never seen 99% of the people who visit the site, never mind the athletes he coaches.

As CF has stated there is more than one way to skin a cat. Take the information provided, observe the effects it is having on yourself or your athletes, and make adjustments where appropriate.

I find I respond to Long to Short better than I do short to long. I am an 11.4, 23.0, 50.9 standard athlete.

Bold, I have been informed by someone who has seen or experienced CF’s SPP2 that its unique. I agree with CL’s view. We can not assume anything about any of Charlie’s training. Before Charlie sharing information, how many coaches would have thought about the intensity of the acceleration and duration being matched to different distance in training? Even if they have how many trained their athletes consciously using a short to long approach or vertical intergration to plan out their sessions? How many approached strength training not just as a muscular and injury prevention activity but a way of priming the CNS? How many coaches use 20-35 mins recovery for special endurance runs over successive training sessions? How many match strength exercises to the amount of MU recruited?

We have many of the parts but we are missing what I consider to be the KEY the SPP2. Without it, or even an inkling of what it entails or should consist of you will always be second guessing.

Its like doing an experiment and not having knowledge of key variables that affect the outcome of the experiment. You may get similar results, you may not and then by luck you may get results that are optimal. Without all the information, you will not be able to replicate results.

To be fair though if people watch the original SPP1 DVD CF talks about how Trevor Graham plans out his SPP1 and then talks about his SPP2 mentioning the distances covered. I purchased a second SPP1 DVD but it was differnt slightly in content to the first editions. So all you lucky people out there with the original SPP1 DVD will be able to listen and ascertain SOME of the great man’s planning. I can not match his experience or planning so I prefer to stand on his shoulders, is there anything wrong with that? I don’t think so. Just as scientists and others in different professions rely on the knowledge of outstanding people in their field to cut out trial and error so do I and I think its fair to say others like CL JACKSON04.

May I add that Charlie hasn’t published his seminar DVD and notes for the Australian tour (assuming that he will). So CLJACKSON04, I hope that in the near future our wishes may come true…

I don’t think any of the individual elements are bad, but all together (all the medball + running + tempo + the weights everyday) seems like way too much, especially if you are having trouble recovering from just 3 high intensity days.

I understand many of the issues but I’ve tried to make it clear from the start that I couldn’t provide cookie-cutter programs that would suit the needs of such a wide range of individuals (10,000 on the site alone!).
The only thing I can reasonably do is share with you my experiences across the range and level I’ve dealt with over many years. You need to see how and if those ideas can apply to your program. For example, 2 or 3 speed days/week?, L-to-S or S-to-L?
Perhaps that is why the coaches have had an easier time adjusting than athletes trying to do it all on their own.
I get on tricky ground trying to talk about program assistance that I’ve provided because many of you don’t really want to go public with the info you’ve sent me privately, and I understand that.

A thoughtful response.
Understand though, that products are often opportunity driven. For example, we had the possibility to follow an individual in real time to see if the taper system would work for him as required at the National Champs. Everything there is exactly what happened, not theory or general approach. That’s exactly what we did and you see exactly the results. I have had athlete peak when required over and over within my own group. Now you can see that it can work with another athlete with whom I am not familiar before the film starts.
We try to put out product as able but it’s tough for us to free up time to do it.

I’ll try and write something down over easter but at the moment I am really busy at work!

I’ve read and viewed many of the materials released by CF and I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality and depth of information. The products are continually being developed to suit the consumers needs. Look at other products on the market Schroeder’s dvd, 1 billion plyo drills. + We have the opportunity to ask questions on here - where else is there such a luxury?