Short to long speed progression

I just received the new Vancouver DVD last night and watched it, prepared questions for the seminar and…bang, fell asleep just before the seminar started :frowning: It was held at 3AM my time.

Anyway a few questions to Charlie, but anyone else (with the DVD) feel free to chime in:

  1. How would you change the speed/SE volumes when only 2 high intensity training days per week were used (I mean do you up the volumes per session compared to three sessions, and how much)?
  2. It is my understanding that split runs are used in phase I for SE and 80-120m runs in phase II. When training indoors during phase II which one should I use? Can both be used introducing the longer runs later in the spring?
  3. The graph from the seminar was phase I SPP, so could you describe a typical phase II SPP speed/SE session? What are the major differences to phase I?
  4. Regarding strength endurance work on SE days, is it done the last thing after weights?



You prefer Short to Long “most of the time”. Under what circumstances is the Long to Short better?



You use long to short when an athlete doesn’t tolerate high volumes of pure speed work well, and usually with taller and lankier athletes that need more core and strength work.

Charlie has mentioned that a beginner can make more gains by gaining the 10th’s/seconds available at the end of a race, rather than concentrating on the 100th’s/10th’s available at the start of the race. Therefore, would a beginner with little or no endurance/conditioning be better off using the long to short approach?

You have to remember that younger athletes (<16) don’t adapt well to SE runs over 150m. And also when using short to long they get to do more speed work which is where they have improvement potential (and they love to do it). Use tempo and general conditioning to improve their endurance at the end of the race.

The time curves provided by Charlie indicate that beginers have more “improvement potential” by improving their endurance.

On page 5 of the same notes, it also shows that beginners can stand more high intensity work. Therefore, short to long (being of higher intensity) may be more appropriate?

Also, my understanding is that short to long does improve endurance it just starts from the other end of the spectrum. Maybe, it is just that you think of endurance training as typically being developed over longer distances rather than through split runs? Can someone tell me if I am on target?

I concur. We use split runs quite early in the training year. However, without some testing or evaluation of talent process, you may not know what capacities are there to develop or have available for potential gains.

Beginners might be able to stand more high intensity work (e.g., 3 vs. 2d/wk) not because they are better trained, but because they are not capable of taxing themselves that much vs. advanced athletes.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that beginners can make the most progress out of this kind of training and speed endurance, for example, can be at times a better alternative.