Stephen Francis in Sydney

[Charlie_Francis]

@Track007

Is not the more accurate way to describe the long-to-short sysytem concurrent anyway? If one considers that acceleration to the desired distance needs to be in place to perform the rep with quality (e.g. as Charlie states, the ability to accelerate to 20m allows one to to run a world class 600m; 30m to run 300m; 35m to run 400m, etc). For the longer distances to move down (and be run with quality) the shorter distances by which one accelerates to must move up. Have I described concurrent? Or is the difference that in L-TO-S one accelerates only to the distance necessary to run the SE distance in ones short speed sessions, whereas in the concurrent system one uses distances beyond what is necessary for the SE in the short speed sessions (a bit like in S-TO-L) whilst bringing the SE distances down ‘concurrently’?

Well both systems have everything in there- it’s a matter of which part is emphasized more and during which period. That’s why I argue that SF’s program is S-to-L, as I would interpret it, because the accels are there from the outset and are more intense than the longer runs.
I suppose concurrent is a more accomodating definition, as who can argue with it!