What do you want?

[Charlie_Francis]

@fogelson

John, I don’t really understand why you came into this thread to talk down to me, while missing the point of my post. I know there is no cure all, that nobody is perfect, etc. I enjoy Charlie’s products and his information is amazing. That is exactly why I want to see how he would handle a situation that is much more topical to us mortals than to look at the training loads of people running 9.7s and 9.8s who are training full time with therapy 3x a day, great supplementation, etc.

He says there are tremendous similarities, but–and perhaps I am simply not as intelligent/creative as people like yourself–I can’t see how you would apply/adjust something like the Vanc. '04 training plans to an 11.0 collegiate sprinter or a group of athletes ranging from 10.6-11.5 that would not result in a program that is almost completely different than what is presented (except for maybe some weekly structural similarities). Things like split runs are volume and rest dependent and if you can’t handle 2000m of speed a week, you are going to have to change things, which will inherently change the program design. I am curious what those changes would be like and an example of a program with that carried out. I am also curious how one would work around certain genetic/structural issues (if there is a way to work around those). For example, I would think training for a person who has a maximum potential of running 10.50 would be significantly different from one who has the potential to run 9.50.

I understand where you are coming from but you also have to understand that to suit an individual’s specific requirements requires a specific program that moves beyond the scope of a forum or products of interest to a wide audience.
The programs you see here are from real cases and are not theoretical.
We try to create products that allow you to interpolate, based on your reality, and, frankly, there is no forum out there that provides as much information as we do now.
While we cannot absolve you from this responsibility, we may be able post more training programs from athletes at the levels you suggest, with the caveat that these will still not be directly transferrable to all athletes at the same performance level.
One example of this is the heat I took in 1979 for not having an individualized 400m program for a 400m girl I was training.
The fact was her RESULTS indicated top level (she’d just won the Senior Nationals) but her BACKGROUND was coming from nowhere.
She had run a best of 59.5 in April and finished with 53.12 in early July (heats and final the same day- equivalent to 52 mid).
This required a hell of a lot of care when it came to SE beyond 200m and would not be suitable for girls who’d trained their entire careers and had only just approached her level.
Her ultimate individual program took her to 50.35.