SPP help

[tamfb]

I wasn't trying to refute what you had to say or anything, I was just trying to figure out the reasons for your suggestion and get some discussion going about what would be best given my current situation. I appreciate your time and effort in helping me out.

i can tell you dont read much on the board bc many of the top coaches on the board who uses cf system only have 2 high int days coaches such as TC and many others. your post doesnt make much sense bc you say your not a high sprinter but want to argue about using two high int days.

[mreoyn09]

i can tell you dont read much on the board bc many of the top coaches on the board who uses cf system only have 2 high int days coaches such as TC and many others. your post doesnt make much sense bc you say your not a high sprinter but want to argue about using two high int days.

Actually I read the forums here quite a bit. I am aware that TC and some of the other coaches that use CF's system go with 2 high days a week. I actually sent a few PMs with TC about it and was very interested when he said he would write up a post about how he trains his athletes but he said he might publish something on the topic soon so he didn't want to write that up yet.

I am just interested in the reasoning behind different recommendations in order to find whats best. Why do you think two high intensity days a week with X amount of volume would be better for me than three high intensity days a week also with X volume? Also why do you think altering CFs plan but sticking with repeat 60s would be better for me than altering the plan and using 60s (or whatever) for pure speed rather than SE development?

Thanks for your time.

[tamfb]

Actually I read the forums here quite a bit. I am aware that TC and some of the other coaches that use CF's system go with 2 high days a week. I actually sent a few PMs with TC about it and was very interested when he said he would write up a post about how he trains his athletes but he said he might publish something on the topic soon so he didn't want to write that up yet.

I am just interested in the reasoning behind different recommendations in order to find whats best. Why do you think two high intensity days a week with X amount of volume would be better for me than three high intensity days a week also with X volume? Also why do you think altering CFs plan but sticking with repeat 60s would be better for me than altering the plan and using 60s (or whatever) for pure speed rather than SE development?

Thanks for your time.

the two days would be just fine remember its always better to undertrain then overtrain also you dont have all the therapy that cf athletes had and you also have to look at outside stressors that many pro athletes dont have to worry about like school etc. you nit picky now over red or green apples, the short speed end is still speed work its not your classical speed endurance work like 4x120 etc, myself i left as was even for my 55m guys.

[mreoyn09]

Thanks for the help.

[maris]

You mentioned keeping the tempo volume between 600 and 1500m during SPP, I assume this is per session, so you are looking at a weekly volume of say 2000 to 4000 a week roughly?? Correct me if I am wrong. Is this standard throughout the higher level sprinters. I assume, the higher level athletes can rely on less tempo as their overall conditioning is more in place, hence the shorter GPP. Unless, the contrary is true, and because they have used a shorter GPP, they keep the tempo volume up for slightly longer to aid the general conditioning. As you can see, I am confused, and find this quite overwhelming, especially when trying to put this into a programme! How about come the competition period, how does the tempo fit in here. What is the recommended volume per session and per week. I have the GPP download, and that gives the example of 2200m for that particular session, but I would be keen to learn how this develops later on into the training year.

[Chupacabras]

I can't really give you any useful advice, as I am only a beginner. I do have a question for you though.

What is your reasoning behind the progression of speed volume during SPP?

Your volume of speed work starts out very low at 300m in week one and progresses to a peak of 780m in week 10, before being reduced again in week 11.

Charlie's example in the Vancouver graphs on the other hand starts out at 2160m in week one and is reduced as the weeks progress, eventually down to 1200m in week 12.

It seems that your volume is increasing during SPP, whereas in Charlie's program the volume gets reduced as SPP progresses.

I understand that your speed volume is consistently quite low due to concerns about recovery. What I don't understand though is why your volume of speed work starts out extremely low and then increases as SPP progresses.

[Chupacabras]

Actually I read the forums here quite a bit. I am aware that TC and some of the other coaches that use CF's system go with 2 high days a week. I actually sent a few PMs with TC about it and was very interested when he said he would write up a post about how he trains his athletes but he said he might publish something on the topic soon so he didn't want to write that up yet.

I am just interested in the reasoning behind different recommendations in order to find whats best. Why do you think two high intensity days a week with X amount of volume would be better for me than three high intensity days a week also with X volume?

I remember reading a Kelly Baggett article where he stated something along the lines of 'doing six heavy sets of squats twice per week is easier to recover from than doing 4 heavy sets of squats 3 times per week.

He uses the analogy that it is similar to turning on the lights at a sports stadium where turning the lights on initially requires a huge amount of power, but keeping them on for a bit longer is not that much more expensive. Turning the lights on for 4 minutes 3 times per week might cost $100 per session ($300 per week), whereas turning them on for six minutes 2 times per week might cost $110 per session ($220 per week).

He is talking about strength training, but I think it might also apply to sprinting. Maybe 300m of speed work done twice per week is easier to recover from than 200m done 3 times per week.

Charlie's athletes had very good therapy available, so recovery time was shortened. Maybe doing speed twice per week is more suitable for athletes who don't have access to skilled massage therapists etc.

[maris]

I remember reading a Kelly Baggett article where he stated something along the lines of 'doing six heavy sets of squats twice per week is easier to recover from than doing 4 sets of squats 3 times per week.

He uses the analogy that it is similar to turning on the lights at a sports stadium where turning the lights on initially requires a huge amount of power, but keeping them on for a bit longer is not that much more expensive. Turning the lights on for 4 minutes 3 times per week might cost $100 per session ($300 per week), whereas turning them on for six minutes 2 times per week might cost $110 per session ($220 per week).

He is talking about strength training, but I think it might also apply to sprinting. Maybe 300m of speed work done twice per week is easier to recover from than 200m done 3 times per week.

Charlie's athletes had very good therapy available, so recovery time was shortened. Maybe doing speed twice per week is more suitable for athletes who don't have access to skilled massage therapists etc.

That is interesting. However, using your example of 300s v 200s, are you going to the same benefits from those runs? The velocities reached in the 200 are likely to be greater, and it is likely that sound mechanices will be in place for a larger proportion of the rep in 200 metres. Therefore, is there a sacrifice in that aspect for substituting sessions in that maner? I do understand it was just an analogy you were using as opposed to actual sessions.

[maris]

I can't really give you any useful advice, as I am only a beginner. I do have a question for you though.

What is your reasoning behind the progression of speed volume during SPP?

Your volume of speed work starts out very low at 300m in week one and progresses to a peak of 780m in week 10, before being reduced again in week 11.

Charlie's example in the Vancouver graphs on the other hand starts out at 2160m in week one and is reduced as the weeks progress, eventually down to 1200m in week 12.

It seems that your volume is increasing during SPP, whereas in Charlie's program the volume gets reduced as SPP progresses.

I understand that your speed volume is consistently quite low due to concerns about recovery. What I don't understand though is why your volume of speed work starts out extremely low and then increases as SPP progresses.

It sounds as if there is a short to long periodisation v a long to short periodisation.

[Chupacabras]

That is interesting. However, using your example of 300s v 200s, are you going to the same benefits from those runs? The velocities reached in the 200 are likely to be greater, and it is likely that sound mechanices will be in place for a larger proportion of the rep in 200 metres. Therefore, is there a sacrifice in that aspect for substituting sessions in that maner? I do understand it was just an analogy you were using as opposed to actual sessions.

I didn't really explain myself properly. I meant 300m of total volume for the session vs 200m of total volume.