I read in Speedtrap that at one point early on Charlie cut back from 3 speed sessions to 2 per week. I was wondering when he returned to the 3 sessions. Did the squad progress together in terms of the number of speed sessions per week or did individual athletes ‘graduate’ to 3 sessions? Does anyone else have any examples of the long-term progression of an athlete’s speed work?
That’s tough. Charlie would have to chime in and expand on the specific histories of his athletes.
Whether to do 2 or 3 sessions a week is going to be determined largely by your work capacity and recovery, as well as outside demands, available time, and access to facilities. I think most people find three sessions a week pretty tough to maintain. I certainly do. If you’re doing two a week, you might be able to perform more work per session than if you were doing three a week.
The following are examples that Charlie has used for both schedules:
Mon: speed
Tues: tempo
Wed: speed
Thur: tempo
Fri: speed
Sat: tempo
Mon: speed
Tues: tempo
Wed: tempo
Thur: speed
Fri: tempo
I don’t think Charlie went back to three speed sessions per week. I think he counted the special endurance runs as a speed session.
Yes, I wasn’t distinguishing between speed and speed endurance. Like I stated, Charlie needs to explain the exact progression that he used.
Clemson, what are some other things you can look for other than the obvious ones. There are some guys, like myself who always look tired, and then there are some people who are always up. I don’t like askin, cuz some athletes have brains and end up knowing when to act dead, and when not to.
If you find 3 speed days per week difficult to maintain, you could substitute one of them to something else that is high intesity (like jumps or medicine ball throws) but not as demanding as sprinting. And ofcourse there’s also the possibility to variate between 3/2 every other week.
No great insights here from me, but I have seen that the high quality´ athletes (read fast) need more time to recover and so 2 speed workouts seems to be enough. I think Clemson´s general 3 rules of observation are really good guidelines, and talking to mature athletes as to how they feel can also help if their honesty isn´t overshadowed by their ambition or willingness to please´the coach.
An indirect quote from Charlie that I heard from a coach I worked with back in the early 90´s (he was a Cdn team coach with Charlie a few times):
If your plan isn´t perfect you can make two mistakes - either do too much or do too little, and doing too little is definitely the better (wiser) option. 
I totally agree that if you go all out 100% on speed days, there will not be room for a third one the same week. But what about early in the fall, when the intensity is closer to 95% than 100% and when the distances are shorter? Would you still go for two high intesity days a week? And further, is the two high intensity sessions stimulus week in and week out enough versatile in the long run, despite changes in the training substance? Sometimes I just feel better doing speedwork with an increase in the impulse after a period of slightly lesser but more frequent impulse. Feels kind of easier when you switch from three to two (or maybe from two to one when we talk about top class sprinters?).
One variation on the intensity scheme is to use strength endurance on one of the speed days as the principle componant.
An example of that would be 3x 80m of running As at walking speed forward, with full recovery between.
Through the fall I only do 2 speed workouts but mainly due to facility constraints. Last year I scheduled 3 speed sesions for my athletes but didn’t always fit them in! (jobs, weather, athlete fatigue etc) Last year, I had one athlete with a rectus femoris tendonitis who could do tempo but not speed work. We substituted explosive med ball instead for 3 weeks with great success. Charlie, I really like the running A drill suggestion.(gasp pant pant…) I’ll use it during March outdoor training when we get a surprise snow storm:mad:
One of the things I struggled with when beginning coaching was not being able to follow my plan (that often took many hours to construct). I would have things for the week / month planned out, and would often make the mistake of if “it’s Monday then we have to do speed”. But sometimes the athlete just wasn’t ready. Which became obvious once they started the session. Of course I made the next mistake of pushing through with the session. Most reading this would probably think “what a fool” but as an inexperienced coach it is hard not to follow your plan. It was only when I had the chance to observe a really smart coach make an athlete wait 4 days longer than originally planned before doing speed work, because they just weren’t ready (read fresh), that it really hit home. If pure speed is what we’re after, then the athlete must be ready before they commence the training. I guess my advice would be go with what you see, not what you have written down. Sometimes you may get 3 sessions in the week, sometimes only 1. The other thing this coach told me was "the faster the athlete runs (pure speed not relative to their PB), then the longer it takes to recover.
Great points Lachlan. I think we’ve all gone through the frustration of making the “master plan”. Maybe we should rename it the “master guideline”
Charlie wrote: ‘One variation on the intensity scheme is to use strength endurance on one of the speed days as the principle componant.
An example of that would be 3x 80m of running As at walking speed forward, with full recovery between’.
The track was covered with snow and it was sub-zero tonight, so we did 3x80m high knees with 10 mins recovery followed by upper body and abs in the gym. Great session. Thanks Charlie.