long to short approach pros/cons

i know how the long to short and short to long approaches work but im curious as to what is better or worse about doing long to short as ths is what my coach is using for me.

there seems to be quite alot of information on short to long approach but im strugglng to find much on the long to short approach.

I know it has somthing to do with certain characteristics of a sprinter may suit a certain approach but im not sure what these are.

They are both good. Charlie used short to long partly because he’s in Canada and doing short stuff was more “do-able” indoors. Running fast special endurance is not the most comfortable thing indoor at York. Also it’s not the best idea to run long to short and have a scheduled workout of 2x450 when there’s a foot of snow on the ground.

ah right so its also another option if particular facilities are hard to come by. Would a particular weight training approach be used depending on what type you choose? i.e cns type weight training (8 reps and below) for a short to long approach as the high intensity is kept throughout the season.

What you derive from such a program (as mentioned previously) does depend upon what your strengths are or background consists.

Also, what exactly the particular long to short schedule is made up of is very important. If it only has long in the early phases(unlike CF’s which has both throughout the program) and only contains actual speed work later in the training it is going to be less effective-IMO.

what type of athlete would suit a long to short program ? if i had to guess possibly a more endurance, lighter built sprinter whos strength is there finish such as tyson gay compared to a more powerful heavier built sprinter whos strength is there start such as asafa powell ? these are just some thoughts of mine.

i get given my training schedule on the 2nd of october but if i had to guess from last winter it will consist of plyometrics and sled pulls no more than 30m. And for track work we never really went over 300m but only done short distances (60m and below) when indoor season came around.

A long to short approach can be followed, if facilities and/or weather allows it.
It’s usually followed by athletes, who have (some of) the characteristics you describe and/or those who can’t handle (frequent) CNS work very well. A certain element of the latter though should always be in there. If this doesn’t happen and a strictly long to short approach is followed distance- and volume-wise, you are risking a very narrow peak at some point in the season (e.g., late spring/early summer).
You may have to somewhat compromise in terms of strength gains, as you’ll probably cycle weights twice within a season (vs. a possible x3 in a short to long plan) and due to the nature of the long to short plan itself.
Both can work equally well provided you choose one over the other for the right reasons.

I see, some great information there ! What type of weight training would you advise for someone following a long to short program if it even becomes a factor? i am currently doing standard 3x10 reps on my excercises except for deadlifts and powercleans which i am doing 3-4 x 5 reps.

If you want this in extensive detail, get the SPP lecture series available in the site store.
You wil see the pros and cons of different approaches and which groups are most likely to benefit

Yes, the person who might benefit from a l-to-s program might be just as you described. Another possibility might include someone who does not handle the more cns-intensive short to long program as well.

Long to short might also be more applicable to training for the 400/400h than the short 100/200 sprinter so the choice of events might also, in part, dictate which model is more likely to be utilized.

I see, i shal be making this purchase then as soon as my student loan comes through :smiley: