I understand your statement; however, ambiguity must be used until we specify a particular athlete.
It would be irresponsible for me to suggest a particular amount of weight lifted relative to bodyweight because lever systems, attachment points, girth dimensions, and so on make the idea of listing specifics- unusable (ergo 'you should be able to squat XXX amount before you attempt depth jumps, etcetera). This is why weights, and any other non-sprint activity, are merely a stimulus (whose utility varies upon the particularities of each athlete’s ability to benefit, or not, from their use at all)
Similar to what I mentioned to RB34 in another thread, it is the output generation that provides context as to dose and frequency.
I agree that the ‘operating system’ if you will, is fundamental relative to how the joint, tendon, ligament, facial, bone networks sustain stress; however, all that said, an equally pertinent question is what is the output potential of the individual.
For this reason, it is why any sub 9.8 sprinter, for example, can be as biomechanically sound as you want, with access to multiple therapy options a day, and still not be able to perform maxV work on consecutive days, at any meaningful volume, and expect not to become injured.
While the consecutive day schedule is performed at major competitions, this is not something that would be performed regularly.
It is a bit of chicken and egg, one might suggest that the only reason that a Bolt, Powell, Gay, cannot perform multiple consecutive days of maxV, max weights, and so on is because of the operational deterioration of their physical structures (which leads to mechanical overload); however, my position is that it is precisely because their output potential is sub 9.8 and this yields the type of structural and mechanical stress that inhibits more frequent exposure to like high intensity stimuli.
Charlie’s approach, High/Low, just makes too much sense in this regard; particularly in reference to those who are performing volumes of max V speed work that require a separation of dose in excess of 24 hours.
Pfaff raises very interesting points regarding the different adaptation potential of high level sprinters which is why his schemes include more consecutive days of different types of high intensity speed/power work; however, the question comes down to type (intensity) and volume. This is why, in my view, nearly any successful sprint program (producing sub 10 sprinters), that is low in injuries, will resemble a high/low structure by default.
I don’t recall if it was Mills or Francis’s camp, however, an associate of mine told me that one of them was basing the training off of one of Charlie’s graphs.
Charlie elucidated how Ben was able to generate large volumes of annual speed work and this was in no doubt a reflection of the higher volume of quality work that the High/Low system supports.