Why do you think this may be the case? I mean, why this may be more “obligatory” vs. a weekly one?
I suspect that those who use the cycles may not build in enough differentiation between heavy medium and light.
Yes I think it’s a risk, given the uncontrolled internal load.
No, its nothing to do with the length of the cycle. It is more to do with the fact that the authors did not offer any guidance on how to build in controls. There is no advice offered on how to modify the training if an athlete is tired for example. Whether a training day can be modified or not done at all if the athlete is fatigued. Of course common sense tells you that you are better off taking a day or two off if fatigue is present.
That is one of the disadvantages of the Italian sprint training method. Rest days are implicit unlike the CFTS method. This leaves too much control of rest to the discretion of the coach. The Italian sprint training system relies more on the skill of the coach in planning in enough modulation. The CFTS guarantees modulation and greater differentiation and far less chance of monotony if followed properly. But like I said earlier in one of my posts, the Italian sprint training method is not all bad, you just have to be highly skilled in planning the training and really make sure that modulation of training is carefully followed.
What is excellent about the Italian method is the daily sequence of training and organisation of the main stimulus, that can not be faulted.
In short the CFTS method is far more idiot proof than the Italian sprint training method.
I see what you mean!
Your current WCs in both the men’s and women’s 100m both do some kind of CNS/ATP work often on back to back days - but it is carefully managed.