Through the course of a few years I have tried few options, one of them was the one you have wrote above, one of them was based on CF’s from template, one of them was where in the second meso of SPP I one day of SE, one EFE, one was flys. With all those approaches above athletes have improved, however with those two where SE was replaced earlier with EFE & Flying 20s, athletes were ready to compete sooner. I felt that there wasn’t much we could improve, we hit the wall. So we had compete from beginning of Jan to beginning of Feb and consequently had to start SPP II sooner which wasn’t bad thing, nevertheless I feel that we didn’t maximize the opportunity to go even faster. I think that smoothing out of the emphasis is essential part of the steady progress and rushing progression is not really advisable. Careful planning is essential.
As to whether 2 or 3 HI from observation I can say that youngsters are handling 3 HI days really well for as long as volume is moderate.
As for the next season SPP I experiment continues, lol.
T-slow asked important question whether you are going to be with coach or by yourself?
I am going to be by myself. I’ll get some film on here in a few weeks as my camera guy will be back home and done with his internship.
I would think 3 HI could be doable, as long as the volume is low enough, but do you think that is an option, T?
The one reason I like 3 HI is because I think it’s easier to plan out workouts - accel session, speed change/max v, and SE session.
With two HI, one will be accel+speed change/max v and the other SE. For me I think it would be more challenging to be able to focus on certain aspects of the accel/max v session.
But T, I do see your point, and as CF said before, when you turn on the stadium lights you might as well have them on for a while because either way you’re going to have a huge bill. So taking that into consideration, you could do more volume per session between 2 HI days, than 3 HI, and have the lights on longer, so-to-speak, during the accel/max v session.
Again too, what are some things to think about as far as SE if I plan on only running 60s indoors?
This quote hangs on the wall in my home for a reason.
You are trying to learn how to sprint. None of these complex progression schemes mean anything until you can sprint.
If you read my 400m journal, you will see how much myself and my athlete invested both financially and time-wise in ourselves to get where we wanted to go.
Well I was going to be working with a coach in Cleveland but he couldn’t spare the time. And Youngstown is a pretty small town, I mean I could have Farmer Bob coach me and have him telling me to ‘spreeeeeent! faster!’. For now I’m just very thankful to have training partners.
One thing that has interested me 'is it better to have a coach who does not follow the CF principles than coaching yourself who does follow the CF way. Where I live there are a number of coaches who do not follow teh CF principles hence ,I train myself.
Just because a coach doesn’t follow CF principles doesn’t mean he/she isn’t a good coach. There are tons of advantages of having a solid coach and a training group.
Well yeah, sure. But I still want to follow CF principles, and there’s no coaches around here I know that do follow many. As I initially stated in this thread, things have been going well and I’m just trying to keep the progress going, so I had a few questions about planning and improving what I’m doing for this year coming up.
Yes I understand this, however, when I am training with a coach who as opposing philosophies to what I believe and have learnt from this site, I find it difficult to train under such conflicting methodology.
Of course I would train with John Smith or Vince Anderson, however , these coaches at my track are no John Smith or Vince Anderson…and If I had the choice at that level then I would much much prefer a Kevin Tyler or a Derek Hansen.
But back to my original question , IS IT better to train in a group with a coach that doesn’t match your training idea or train on your own with your own ideas gathered from this site.
Or Glen Mills or Steve Francis? Some here might not want to train with Usain Bolt because his coach uses IT at least some of the time, but I don’t think you’d have to twist my arm very far.
This is one of Vince Anderson’s presentations which has been discussed on this site, and Charlie clearly disagreed with the part of pushing the whole race:
I am coaching, or assisting, athletes in an individual setting and in a group setting. I am also assisting an athlete whose coach is based in another state - so they work by messages, videoing and getting together when they can. They have benefits.
For 10 seasons I in essence trained by myself, due to work and study commitments. Is was bloody hard work, but I made a deal with a couple of athletes in similar situations as me that I would turn up to training even if I didn’t feel like it.
I think it depends on the personality of the athlete.
just went through USTFCCCA sprint certification with him as an instructor, and yes he does though the interval distances are on the lower ends of the extreme. The guy is passionate but grounded.
What are some examples of his IT sessions and when does he use them? Also, how much of a change is one making by doing IT, possible technique benefits and maybe a good lead in to SE?