My quest for 6.7

[mreoyn09]

@RB34

Problems I have with the S2L program: Before I get started I would like everyone to know that I am not bashing the S2L program because the past few years it has worked well for myself and other athletes that I know.

1: Unless you are getting very good therapy, you will get injured at some point. My thinking behind this is from the long periods of speed/high intensity elements – it takes a toll on the body over time.

2: As a lower level sprinter I think it’s important to get more upright running into the program. Most lower level athletes who follow pure S2L program are great 30m sprinters but suck the last 30m of the 100 or can’t run decent 200’s.

3: Lack of fitness, unless you live in warm weather it’s impossible to perform the necessary amount of tempo work to develop proper general fitness. I like treadmill and bike workouts but nothing beats running!!!

4: I think if you are working with lower level or NCAA sprinters it’s very difficult to prepare them for a college season on a pure S2L program. Even if you look at NCAA programs who follow something similar to a S2L there’s still plenty of longer work into the program from day 1.

5: If you don’t have a coach like Charlie Francis on site, I think your results will suffer big time. When doing speed change and finishing drills it’s important to have a good coach on site, otherwise I think the athlete could be wasting time (technical aspects) and probably should be using Int tempo/CSW.

6: Going back to the general fitness theme, I think most lower level sprinters would benefit more by following a L2S or MVP style of training there first 3-4 years then going towards S2L later in there post collegiate careers.

7: Last let’s not over think this, look at most of the success sprinters at the NCAA level (D1-NAIA) are they doing S2L?? NO… We all want to copy the elite athletes maybe we should take a page from successful D3 or NAIA programs – they are the smart one’s because they are doing more with a lot less (talent, funding, facilities etc).

Just named a few, I probably have 3-5 more to add to the list.

Good post and good points.

Do you think the relatively higher intensity of most S-L programs is a greater injury risk than the higher volumes that often accompany L-S programs or those programs that include more longer runs?

One confound for #7 however is coaching which most members here, and elsewhere, who have failed to see great success using S-L plans dont have. I can also see a team environment, which is present in the d3 programs, NAIA programs, MVP group, etc. having a significant impact on the effectiveness of programs that include more longer work (increasing motivation and so forth to get through hard workouts or longer runs).

Do you think more fitness/SE capacity/etc from the long running has an effect on the capacity to handle (in terms of recovery and performance in the races) a higher meet volume (# of meets and # of races per meet)? I get the impression that a lot of schools will run people in a ton of events. Maybe this is a way to get more high intensity SE than would otherwise be accomplished by S-L where you might get more high quality SE in training over the course of the year but less in meets (where the speeds will be higher).

Syrus- sorry to jack your log. We can move this if you like.