Spp2 se

I have several questions about this. Flash, you might know about this.

I’ve checked across the board for specifics on SPP2, and trying to figure out what the SE would be like on those.

Here is one such thread:

Then, the post by lkh on this thread:

It seems like there are two different answers here.

TC suggests doing, I don’t know if he’s still talking about 1 set, or 2 sets, of 80,100,120. Seems like one set, but I am unsure. Anyhow, are those done at max? Or with a 30-40m intensity limit like Flash suggests? And what about the ~6min/15min rest Flash suggests? Or should this workout be done at max, like Charlie said? I’m confused.

On the second link, lkh talks about what seems to be a different kind of SPP2 workout (seems like the beginning of SPP2, whereas the previous post would seem to be later in SPP2, correct?)
It’s something like 2-3x3x80 7/15min rest. Then mentions 3x80 with 15min rest.

I’m confused as to whether the “split 80s”, 2 or 3x3x80 - are these actually max??? Or intensity limited like the split 60s? 6-9 reps of 80m going for max seems like an awful lot, but I could be wrong. And then are they suggesting that you move up to 3x80, then finally go into longer distances like in the previous workout (80, 100, 120)?

TopCat was referring to what Flash said about the options of running, not volume.

Everything depends what you can handle re: volume.
When you are going to do SE runs, speed needs to be fully developed so the speed end. is a proper speed end. and not just done in the 250/300 pace.

I think Ikh was doing those 3x3x80 pretty fast is on 7-8/15min recovery, so no jogging. Maybe Ikh went through 80-100-120 there is no info in that particular post, its quite possible that Ikh performed those runs to smooth up the transition to 120s.

There you go plenty valuable info in those two posts about: how and when to do what, to maximise already developed speed.

All those options would be legitimate depending on your needs. The faster you do the runs, obviously the less volume you can do and the longer your rest intervals. Charlie always talked about the contrast between height and breadth of the high intensity stimulus. Your ability to do a SE run all out will depend on your recovery and readiness status that day. If you’re not ready to go all out, drop the intensity a notch and add more reps, which will reduce CNS load. To use a weigh lifting analogy, you might intend to work up to your 2 or 3 rep max that day, but as you go through the warm up, you know you’re just not ready for it. Fine, keep the weights around 80% and do a couple sets in the 5-6 reps range and call it a day. Its still a solid, high intensity workout.

For special endurance you have a lot of options. To maximize the height of the stimulus you could work in the 80-150m range with maximum acceleration and extended recoveries. However, if you need to reduce the CNS stress, you can extend the distance to, e.g., 250-300m, which naturally involves a shorter acceleration and lower intensity (max speed reached) even if you run that distance at a personal best. Or, you could stay in the 80-150m range and limit the acceleration distance, allowing you to do more runs with shorter rest intervals, effectively turning them more into split runs. I would say to first figure out how much intensity you can handle that day and work from there. The more advanced you are, and the higher your performance level, the less frequently you can maximize the height of the stimulus and the more you need to rely on breadth.

I think lower level athletes would probably benefit more from concentrating on breadth by dropping the intensity a notch and accumulating more volume rather than trying to keep setting personal bests at 120 or 150m. It’s similar to the elite level athletes but for different reasons. The lower level athletes need to develop more work capacity at high intensity (breadth) before they’re ready to handle maximum intensity in SE.

I get it. But the one thing I’m still confused about is that 2-3x3x80 workout. Top speed should already be developed in SPP2 or at least almost there, and Charlie has said there is no need for intensity limits at that point, which of course makes sense.

But I’m trying to apply it in my situation whereas my top speed isn’t developed yet. So could I do that workout with intensity limits?
And so, say the top speed was completely there, is it still a good idea to do 6-9 all out 80s??

I don’t understand what you mean that your top speed isn’t there yet. Are you referring to your training phase?

I think part of your confusion is conflating special endurance with maximum speed. They’re different (albeit closely related) components. The concern about using intensity limits with speed work after maximum speed has been consolidated doesn’t apply to SE. One of SE’s benefits is precisely because it involves an intensity limit. For example, Charlie would deliberately use longer SE runs (e.g., 300m) for some of his athletes who couldn’t handle as much CNS stress from the maximum speed work. He needed to draw a sharper contrast between Max and SE to let the CNS recover. Just because you’re no longer using intensity limits in your max speed work in a particular training phase doesn’t mean you can’t use them with SE. In fact, you might need them more in SE because of the higher intensity in the max work.

Thanks for that answer. So what would the intensity limits (in general for an athlete of my level) be for the 2-3x3x80? Like 30-40?

That’s too specific to answer. There are a lot of factors that go into it such as your current training phase, what kind of speed work you’re doing, etc. Realistically, most lower level sprinters are going to be at maximum speed or near it by 40m anyway, so I don’t know if that would really be an intensity limit in your case. Without a coach monitoring you and helping plan your training, I would recommend starting conservatively with say 20m accelerations and opting for more reps (i.e. spilt runs). Build the base that way, then extend the accel limit, just like with speed work. However, if you’re doing a short-to-long approach, keep the acceleration progression for SE behind your progression for max speed.

Alternatively, keep the acceleration distance the same, e.g., 20-30m, and extend the maintain distance as your fitness improves. For example, begin with say 2x3x80 (20m acceleration) with walk back recovery between reps, progress to 2x2x120 (20m accel) with walk back recovery between reps, and then to 2x250 (20m accel) with full recovery between reps. The total volume is roughly the same, but the SE demands and average speed continually increase. I wouldn’t copy that exact progression, but qualitatively it gets the point across. You could do that for say Phase 2 SPP, and then in Phase 3 you could move on to the 80-150m range at full burn with complete recovery.

You’re awesome Flash. I’m sure I’ll have plenty of more questions for you come SPP3!

Short-to-Long can take two basic forms. One is to simply start with just short distances and add longer distances as you progress through the phases. I think this is what most people think of when they think short-to-long.

The other method approaches maximum speed from both directions, starting with short speed runs as well as long SE with short accelerations (maybe beginning as split runs), and then increasing the length of the speed runs while reducing the length of the SE runs. With this approach, the acceleration distances continually increase for both speed and SE (SE slightly lagging behind) until they arrive at close to the same point (e.g., 60-120m).

Short-to-long primarily refers to the acceleration distance and not necessarily the total length of the run. That’s why Charlie said the difference between short-to-long and long-to-short is not as dramatic as many people tend to think.

Well said mate.

The two major differences I can think of except length of the covered distance is the single rep, are form of sprinting and physiological response to the given stimulus.
I think that, for any sport training CF philosophy/ thinking would apply well “Practice doesn’t make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Only perfect practice will make perfect!”

That’s such a great way to look at it, going by average velocities and working them down with SE. I’ve thought about doing a hybrid method like that before, just not sure how to periodize it for a full phase.

This is merely a simple example model:

Phase 1 would start with 60m split runs and 60m speed change drills (EFE and FEF). The split runs form an early SE base and gradually morph into max speed runs as the intensity limit increases and the rest intervals and rep number decrease. At the same time, the speed change drills also morph into straight max speed runs (Charlie outlines this in several seminar videos). Eventually both workouts arrived at 60m max speed runs (from different directions), culminating in indoor comp.

Phase 2 would continue to consolidate maximum speed training with longer max speed runs (50-80m) and flying sprints with long lead-ins (40-50E+20F) in the early parts of the phase, as well as incorporate longer SE runs, perhaps first as split runs and then morphing into longer SE runs as outlined above.

Phase 3 would maintain the max speed and progress the SE to the shorter (and faster) 80-150m zone with max acceleration and recovery (not necessarily every SE workout, depending on recovery status).

Not sure about what you mean here about SE though… So you progress from split 60s to say, split 80s, then you can progress those as longer SE runs as discussed…

But then, in phase 3, you maintain the max speed of course, and progress to SHORTER SE? After you lengthened them? Is that a typo or am I misunderstanding?

In Phase 1, the 60s start off with a short intensity limit (20m) and rather short rest intervals. As such, they are run with incomplete recovery. You might begin with sets of 4x60m (20+) (i.e. 240m broken into four segments). As the intensity limit increases (25, 30, etc.), the rest intervals have to be increased and the number of reps and sets reduced, until you’re running a few (e.g., 4-6) 60s all out by the end.

You could potentially increase the length of the split runs while maintaining the intensity limit depending on how much speed work you would be doing at the end of Phase 1. For example, if you were doing split run 60s on M and F, and speed change drills on W, you are beginning with two SE workouts and 1 speed workout per week. However, as both types of workouts progress toward the same point (all out 60m runs) you end up with three max speed workouts per week. That might be too much to handle. It depends on the individual, how long the phase and comp period is, tapering, etc. (i.e. things that can’t be answered easily in a forum). In that case, it might make sense to progress one of the split run workouts in the opposite direction by keeping the intensity limit and stretching the maintain portion of the runs so that at the end of the phase you are doing two max speed workouts and one SE workout per week.

What I suggested for Phase 3 follows what I described in previous posts. In phase 2 you’re using longer split runs (2-4x80-120m) and progressing them to longer continuous runs (250-300m) while continuing to hold the intensity limit at 20-30m. In Phase 3 you drop the distance of the SE runs but increase the acceleration distance, so that you’re doing 80-150m runs with all out acceleration (no restrictor plate).

Does that make more sense?

Gotcha Flash.

This has been a great thread, however , I am confused a bit about the transition from spp1 to spp2. If in spp1 by the end you have built up the intensity limit to a few all out 60m runs, then in spp2 you do the 2x 3x 80m runs with an intensity limit of 20+, doesn’t that waist the speed you have already developed in spp1 as you have done all out 60s. Just a little confused about this and how you would progress it. Cheers

Again, remember that special endurance is a separate component from max speed, even though they are closely related. The intensity limits in the example SE progression for Phase 2 would not be applied to the max speed workouts.

Thanks flash, you’ve been a big help on this thread. Cheers