I don’t doubt that it would prove time consuming to categorize the various programs out there. For the program to yield consistent results over time; however, I would suspect a gradual trend one way or the other would have to, by default, become evident.
The alternative would indicate some sort of complex approach to programming the actual speed work which, in and of itself, lends to interesting problems so I’d be curious to know of the actual intentions of some of the coaches out there who do not think in terms of short to long or long to short and, subsequently, do not program the speed work in a way that gradually works towards longer or shorter distances over the course of the year.
No question injuries tend to come with the territory regarding athletes who are capable of generating the forces necessary to compete at the highest levels; however, I’d suspect, which is something I generally avoid, that ‘most’ of the soft tissue injuries we see in T&F have more to do with programming/coaching errors versus the demands of the sprint training itself; regardless if the program is S-L, L-S, or any other variant.
Honestly, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to deem most of these systems as ends-to-middle rather than S2L or L2S. Many programs seem to go short to long with acceleration work and long to short with int. tempo and SE.
I think for the most part, the days of true L2S in terms of no acceleration work whatsoever for the majority of the fall and winter period, are over.
Re. Stephen Francis, has he specified the progression from hills>sled>grass>track with regard to the acceleration portion of his program? Does he view the sled and hill work to be interchangeable or is it a designed progression to flat sprinting?
Yes but I was not making a comment about that with my previous post. I was merely stating that in response to lr1400 post saying its hard to quantify the intensity of the 37sec 300m since they are in flats and on grass. Since we have a reported PR under the same conditions, figuring the relative intensity is straightforward.
It is imposible to attribute the cause of injuries to training methodology. There are other variables that come into play that may have caused the injuries.
Key points:
1 “is s2l passes l2s”
2 “Long term damage from l2s is permanently irreparable in developing athletes”
Certainly it can be a combination of many things but for example doing only grass work in the winter and then jumping into spikes and running an indoor season is an example of a mistake in methodology that will almost certainly lead to injury.
Most injuries are based on training choices though well structured plans of any type should result in a low number of injuries and significant improvement.
Indeed. Most of my injuries can be traced back to faulty workout design (usually too much load at too high of an intensity). Very few total surprises in hindsight.
If all work is performed at or near 100% effort, yet volume doesn’t increase, how does the intensity of a sprinters programme increase??
I could understand how progression may be bought about if volume increased, but if the intensity is already 95-100%, how does this bring about the progressions needed??
You get better so the absolute intensity rises from year to year therefore the training load would rise each year regardless of whether volume rises (load = volume + intensity).
Anyway, volume would rise gradually from year to year up to a point- this is all described in great detail in the Vancouver video series and then again in writing in the Key Concepts Elite Edition - which for my money is one of the greatest pieces of writing on speed ever written.
This assumes that one follows a well thought out and structured training program year to year. If you follow a completely different program every year you don’t have bench marks to surpass because everything would be new, right?
It would be good to separate the notion of ‘effort’ vs. that of ‘intensity’, i.e., 95-100% effort (subjective by feeling) doesn’t necessarily equal 95-100% intensity (objective by timing).
If you are a beginner, you (should) have PBs all the time, hence 100% etc but at the top a PB equals WR so you live in the sub-max speed area most of the time. Regardless, if you follow sessions written by me yet ignore my provisos about shutting down when you have a PB and when tired etc, it is NOT my program any more.
Guys, thanks for the replies, starting to get my head around this now!!
Have been looking at the CNS stress in training programs, and am unsure on the specifics. Are we talking CNS fatigue due to suboptimal descending drive and changes in afferent inputs, or more towards the peripheral sites such as an impairment at the NMJ where the action potential fails to cross the motor neuron to the muscle fibre?? Or is it both??