Are you a track or performance coach?
Been both. Strictly track right now.
So I guess that you don’t want to share the wealth :rolleyes:
Since I didnt have internet on my vacation I forgot to add this, I totally understand why smaller schools div 2 and 3 would follow a tempo or long to short program because if you think about it those schools outdoor season is only 6-8 weeks and it pays to have those longer runs into the program much earlier in the year vs following a pure short to long program. I think a pure short to long program is great for the elite who can race late into the summer, I also can see why guys like powell and hsi guys can run fast 100’s much earlier then most.
When i worked with guys n gals in yr’s 10-12, we all did strictly S-L.
Over 10months - we had at most 2 guys with shin pain that we worked around and they still ran superb in that short time.
Everybody else was fine
Everybody Pr’d - girls n boys
Mums loved it too - for there disobedient child was now calm and positive.
i wouldn’t say L-s is more tempo based than S-L - we sure did our fair share of tempo
my friend im talking about 100/200 not indoor, you cant run a fast 100m with just 60m training. im not talking about cf tempo running but more hart style of tempo running ex: 6x200 30sec rest 3-5min.
Oh really? Ben went straight outside and ran 10.02 first race in 1986 and 9.7ht during indoor training season in Jan 1987. Don’t forget that Mennea’s speed training was mostly based on 60m repeats. Depends on how many and how much recovery between reps (forms split-rep SE)
Well coach i hope your right, so i should open up with 10.5-10.6.
Would the vol be higher and rest time shorter compare to the van graphs?
You’d be surprised what you can open up with. Some examples of from my squad in your performance range.
2006 PBs - 7.1, 10.8, 21.9,
2007 Indoor PBs: 6.9, 21.6 (1st race indoors),
2007 Outdoor PBs: 21.55 (1st race), 10.7(first race). Season End: 21.2
2007 PBs - 7.3, 10.9, 22.0, 49.5 (outdoor)
2008 Indoor PBs, 7.1, 21.8 (3rd race), 49.0 (1st race)
Note that in the second example this 400m PB was run off speed endurance work of no more than 60m! Gave a few people a shock when this happened including the athlete themselves.
If the quality of the work is high enough there’s no reason you can’t do it.
My HS kids have been doing S-L …the 400m guys during their first track SE session ran “smooth” for and came close to their PBs from the year before.
And may I add that apparently Borzov also used 60m sessions to run successfully.
I believe I read of Mennea running sessions of 4(4 x 60m) with 2 and 4 minutes recovery. Does that seem accurate?
The question is how many weeks did they have between indoor and outdoor, most small schools in the states have 2-3 weeks to get ready for there first outdoor meet. What would a sample outdoor week look like for your 100/200 athletes?
Some people say as short as 45-60sec.
and may i add with very very short rest im sure cf would increase the rest intervals.
Don’t know entirely the relevance of this post, but I heard Roger Black said that if he used only 3 distances in training for 400m, they would be 60m, 150m, and 300m.
How much do your athletes typically progress over the indoor period? By the I mean, from their first 60m race to their last 60m race? Some programs seem to open up quite slow and progress steadily, while others run fast throughout.
Pretty similar for Ben later on though he did a higher vol in 85- and higher still for Mennea.
If you look at 4x60m with incomplete breaks, you can think of it as a split 240m if you prefer.
In any event Mennea broke the WR over 200m with this approach.
Even though Ben hardly ever ran a 200 when he was healthy or rested, he did run 20.29 and was capable of much faster on the right day.
Pretty similar for Ben later on though he did a higher vol in 85- and higher still for Mennea. What do you mean?
I have spoken to coaches who have used spilt runs they all say it worked very well but not as well as during a full 120 or 150 etc.
I believe it was around 85 when Bens Volume Peaked - then they had to drop the volume a bit each year - leading to the graphs you see on the van dvd. Hence, the Van graphs are actually lower than the total volume than what was the year before and lower again than the year before that.
Hope that makes sense.