Short to long 2x per week?

What is stop someone doing S-L 2pw? :confused: I understand the reason someone should do L-S is is because they cannot handle the CNS strain as much but we also know that a lower level athlete cannot draw on the CNS to the same extent. Also complicating the issue is CF’s claim to develop core speed first and move out. THAT seems to be in contrast to L - S. …so why does it seem that S-L has to = 3 days pw?

The problem with 2x/week with S-to-L is that it’s hard to tolerate sufficient volume in the two sessions. For example 600m in L-to-S might be 2 x 300 but when made up of 20s, 30s, speed changes, etc, the same volume is much tougher to handle.

so to achieve an adequate total volume in effect S-L 2x per week could actually become more stressful than 3x pw where the stress is spread out over that extra session?

Or you could just use an overall lower volume of work - in my experience this is perhaps more applicable to developing athletes anyway but at the elite level take charlie’s word for it.

More applicable than a L-S approach?

You could do both. move from 3 x/week to 2x/week as the distances move from the shorter distances to the longer ones. That would end up being towards the end of phase one and staying at 2x/week for phase two and three.

In my experience with Long to short I just find it hard to work on technique using it. Firstly, if the distance is long you can’t phsyiocally see some of it. Secondly, if you run any distance over 100m fatigue starts to set in (at almost any pace) and inexperienced athletes like to “battle” which detracts from a technical emphasis. With S-L its all in front of your eyes. They don’t have to concentrate very long and it works fine for competitions even upto 200m indoors.

A Long to Short doesn’t need to exclude some sub max technique work after the WU and before the SE runs, though it is a bit harder to do.

I was going to say the same thing reading through this. Why not working on what Charlie said and/or at full acceleration mechanics. The longer intervals you mainly work on could also indicate how far out you could extend the acceleration distances for those drills.

Use negative splits.

I don’t follow. How does that help?

If I ask for two fast 400s I get 46.2 and 47.6 with bad technique the last part of the runs.
If I ask for 25 the first 200m and 23-23.5 the last 200, I get two runs with solid technique all the way.

I see, split runs.

Charlie, I think he is talking about running the first 200m of the 400m in 25 and then go hard on the 2nd half, rather than actually splitting up into 2 seperate reps.

In that case, I wouldn’tcount on technique hanging together past 200m

To me he means two runs. We’ll soon find out, I guess… :slight_smile:

Why? I get great body position, arm action is fine, and a good balance between back-side and front-side mechanics is maintained.
I was scared to try this at first, I thought maybe the athletes may not get the same benifits as if they did the runs the regular way(go for the best time). However, it seems to be working, my athlete was able to go sub 47 (400m)and sub 21(200m) for the first time this indoor season. My girl also broke 53 (400m).

edit: 2 runs at 400m,(not split runs)

How long between efforts? I know KK is a big fan of split runs generally with 30 sec between but at times up to 2 minutes.

Interesting, thankyou for that insight. So you tell them to run to 200m in 25s and then keep going? And explain more about the negative split idea. Do you aim for the first 200m in a negative split to achieve rhythm and then because you no longer need to accelerate you can now perhaps increase this speed?

All clear now thanks.

How do you find this carries over into races? Is there a tendency to go too easy over the first portion as that is what has been done in training?