L-to-S Vs S-to-L, Which gives you best results?

This is a question mainly for anyone coaching or training (preferably within the the CFTS but not exclusively). What have you found gives you the best results (Please state in terms of 100, 200 or 400)? I have found s-to-l best for 400m for myself.

Looking at the CFTS E-book and Angela Issajenko’s training diary, she seemed to run higher quality 200’s in 1983 using a l-to-s training plan but in 1987 using the s-to-l plan ran a better 100 but was poorer in her 200’s (though I do not know whether this was more down to a focus solely on the 100).

Thoughts

A lot to do with focus and conditions with the 200m. Certainly her best 200s came from the L-to-S but 100 S-to-L

Hi Charlie

‘Focus and Conditions’ by this do you mean circumstances? As Angela competed successfully using both directions and was arguably more of a 100/200 athlete than Ben, did she thrive more off one approach more than the other?

Too hard to tell because sometimes you get better condition in one year than another- judge what’s best for you

In 1982 in her LtS plan she had much more competitions at 200m incl some 400m.
For sure she didn’t have the occasion to show her best at 200m in 1987, she only competed twice : National Champs on the 3rd day of competition 22.90 w-1.69, and Berlin 22.55 w-1.0. Berlin’s time doesn’t reflect her true level, because she was surely tired as it came in her 5th competition in 12 days (and only 2 days after 11.09 w-1.5 and 11.03 w-1.2 win in Zürich), coming from the Nationals in Canada.
Charlie what do you think she was able to do with proper recovery?

there’s no doubt that 87’s 200s were limited and the conditions she ran them in were terrible, especially the Nationals, with pissing rain as well as the headwind. She also began to run into the same situation as Ben. She could earn much more staying in the 100m. I would guess she could have run 22.10 or perhaps a bit lower with a few more runs.