Stephen Francis in Sydney

[kitkat1]

@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’?

How far do you have to accelerate to run a marathon?

I don’t think you can describe any program by the distance over which an athlete is required to accelerate.

For better or worse, Concurrent was a term I coined for my own design. And by Concurrent I meant that all performance threads and all energy systems and the training required to invoke them were being developed concurrently.

This was in essence a concept explained to me by Charlie back in the early 1980s. He said all threads of performance should be enhanced simultaneously from week 1, but that in keeping with concepts even back then, the emphasis would vary over time in a sort of series of wave patterns (for each performance thread: ie: speed, strength, stamina, style, [p]sychology) brought about by the interplay of volume and intensity as we move forward along the time-line to the championships.