Thanks, sir, but I have seen and read all of those. Seeing programs with 2000m of speed work on top of 6000m+ of extensive tempo and weights doesn’t exactly help me a whole lot in my planning, especially after reading logs of people running 13s in the 100m and 29+sec 200m doing those programs. I wish it did, but thanks for the constructive and useful advice anyway.
My point was that Rupert asked which products we would like and I would like to see a product that is more geared to the majority of competitive athletes out there, particularly on the forum. Even in Division 1 NCAA track, there aren’t that many guys going under 10.4 or 10.5 with consistency and that is with people that generally have at least 5-7 years of training behind them. I’d like to see what Charlie would do for people at that level. I understand he says adjust volume/intensity/etc., but I am looking for something more specific since it is clearly a little more complicated than that or everyone would have massive success. The SPP graphs are a great visual guide, but the changes necessary for a mortal to handle and do well on that would be so great the program itself would be much different.
If everything was so clear cut (ie read/view materials, read forum, adjust to your level, peak) and easy to apply based on these materials, then there would be hordes of sub 10 guys from all of the elite coaches and there just aren’t. Even the best (John Smith, S. Francis, etc.) have a hard time getting genetic freaks to be consistently, if at all, under 10 seconds.
I generally ran under 29 for 200m and have never made any claims to be a talented sprinter, in fact far from it. Thanks for reminding me of that though
Perhaps it just shows that consistently running under 10.4 isn’t as easy as some make it out to be?
So what you want is a magic cure all?
Lets put this in a different context. I don’t know if you or others are watching the Charles Barkley / Hank Haney project, if not they are on line at http://www.youtube.com/user/finallyko forget that it is golf and watch it from a coaching perspective. It is very interesting. A guy who used to play ok and then got to where he had possibly the worst swing in the world working with one of the top Coaches. Haney himself thought he would have it sorted in a few days. It is good fun and an interesting insight.
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.
Firstly last I checked anyone was allowed to post in any thread. Secondly where does this me talking down to you come from? Lets see,. I provided links to what I thought would be helpful then you make comment belittling my performances in a totally patronizing fashion, then in the above you post and perhaps I am simply not as intelligent/creative as people like yourself…hmm who is the one talking down / patronizing who? :rolleyes:
BTW I agree with, and 100% understand, what you are saying, did from the start.
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.
I would like to see something geared towards the NCAA athlete whose indoor season may be from late Dec-early March and a very short outdoor season lasting from late March-late May. I have seen athletes coming from an L-S have more success in the NCAA ranks vs. using S-L with such a short outdoor season.
Yes I do… I have spoken to several coaches/athletes who follow a S-L setup and they all agree when the SE is in place there season is over and they no longer have races; unlike world class guys who race late into the summer. When these athletes went to a L-S or intensive tempo program they had better success outdoors but there indoor performances drop a little.
The criteria for choice isn’t based on when the season finishes, but when you start and finish and athlete suitability.
If the SE isn’t in place at the right time, that’s a planning issue. BOTH L-to-S and S-to-L have significant Speed Endurance possibilities within them, as you can see from the two comparative charts. They are just achieved differently.
We opened up fast first time out from SPP2. that came primarily from SE maintained from SPP1 because there wasn’t that much time to get much more SE in place at least as we did it, reserving SPP2 for pure speed and SPP3 for extending it.
Those who choose L-to-S and sacrifice indoors are using a single periodization plan IMO.
Lousy coaching, James? That is quite pretentious on your part with no guys running 4.3s and only, what, two or three going 4.4s? There are plenty of coaches who have been deemed by people on this board as “great” that do not have people going that fast consistently and plenty others who have “poor” training that have guys winning titles year in, year out.
John Smith has some PRO guys running 10.2s on a regular basis (who were running 10.3s-10.4s as teenagers), so don’t give me that nonsense.
I am not talking solely about athlete potential, but also the difficulty to get people to express that potential. If everyone thinks life and programming is so easy after reading CFTS and watching a few seminar videos, then why aren’t guys like Nathan from the Taper DVD or Desai (back in the day) going 10.0s? CF does a fantastic job at presenting his experiences and beliefs–he does it so clearly that is seems like that process is very simple and easy to follow, but clearly, it isn’t. I am surprised more people here have not realized that. That is why I am excited about the new plans they have for product releases/seminars/etc.
Probably more a function of the lousy climate that half the country has during the NCAA season. I can count on about half my hand how many good meets normally occur in the north during the NCAA season. You have usually about 3 or 4 that are nice weather (if you’re lucky enough to make it into May) and half of those will have a headwind. It’s a lot easier to sprint when you’re in Jamaica vs Oregon.
That answers the “Nathan” comment above too.
Fogelson, I didn’t make that statement to upset you, but only to elucidate the fact that I’ve become aware of as many tragic misdirections in the NCAA T&F community as I have in the NCAA S&C community.
If you don’t believe me than I’d encourage you to do some investigating as to what the sprint programs look like at some different institutions.
for example, one D-1 program has their sprinters run suicides thinking that this drill will enhance turnover. I almost vomit as I share this with you.
Please don’t make the mistake of including me in an alleged group of individuals whose reality is limited to books and dvds.
I coach for a living.
Don’t forget that there’s a galaxy between running sub 10.0 and running sub 10.5. It doesn’t take demographic statistics to differentiate between those groups.
for example, I worked with a Caucasian LJ/100m runner when I coached at the high school level (he wa 23 at the time) and over the course of 3 months I took him from 10.5 mid to 10.4 mid (all FAT, I can’t remember the exact times) simply by adjusting his programming. I don’t think he had the potential to run sub 10.0, however.
Incidentally, if you’re referring to only this last round of pro day times, I’ve since found out that one of the seven I trained was timed between 4.36 and 4.39 by two different NFL teams; but remember, with all of these hand times, whose to say what anyone is actually running.
You ought to take a position at one of the teams then and show everyone what results you could present. I know there are numerous NCAA coaches on this forum from D3 and no facilities to top tier Division 1 T&F and I think all would be interested in seeing how radically different things would be.
If you don’t believe me than I’d encourage you to do some investigating as to what the sprint programs look like at some different institutions.
for example, one D-1 program has their sprinters run suicides thinking that this drill will enhance turnover. I almost vomit as I share this with you.
Sure, Pitt’s program sucks. Arkansas did a ton of intensive tempo though and their guys cleared up the medals at plenty of NCAA meets. LSU uses intensive tempo AND overspeed AND specific weights and they continually put up world class people in every sprinting and hurdle event. They took at guy who ran track through his life from 10.5 to 9.8 in 4 years.
Please don’t make the mistake of including me in an alleged group of individuals whose reality is limited to books and dvds.
I coach for a living.
I don’t deny that. I think there are numerous great coaches who still don’t necessarily get results all the time. John Smith hasn’t gotten a new guy to 9.8 in how long? And he has had the horses for sure… Point is, things aren’t that simple and if learning and applying things CONSISTENTLY was so easy, everyone could do it. The point of this thread and my comments in it is to help explain what kind of products I, and probably many others, would find useful (something topical to our performane levels). This isn’t a thread about your experience or your team.
Don’t forget that there’s a galaxy between running sub 10.0 and running sub 10.5. It doesn’t take demographic statistics to differentiate between those groups.
for example, I worked with a Caucasian LJ/100m runner when I coached at the high school level (he wa 23 at the time) and over the course of 3 months I took him from 10.5 mid to 10.4 mid (all FAT, I can’t remember the exact times) simply by adjusting his programming. I don’t think he had the potential to run sub 10.0, however.
Incidentally, if you’re referring to only this last round of pro day times, I’ve since found out that one of the seven I trained was timed between 4.36 and 4.39 by two different NFL teams; but remember, with all of these hand times, whose to say what anyone is actually running.
That is great, where is he now? Where has the programming taken him? Again, we’re looking for things that will allow for continued progress and help lead us through these plateaus and difficulties. You telling us you took a guy with a crappy program and changed a couple things and he went a little faster doesn’t exactly help, at all, integrate Charlie’s charts and plans to our levels.
I am sure numerous other teams and athletes could say the same, but I want to look at context. When everyone was being timed in the same fashion, what did they run, simple as that.
For massage, check out the taper download. It’s how I got my start. I would watch and massage my leg to get the technique down. Also, Jane Project has several minutes of a shaking massage, which is not seen on the taper video.
