Originally Posted by Steve Shafley
Sorry Dan, if you go back in this thead I've made that comment way before Lyle put down his neverending story.
Soviet sport science is a worthwhile resource, but you have to apply it on a sport to sport basis. For example: Verkhoshansky outlined a program for a 100m sprinter, but it was completely different than the programs the current crop of top 100m sprinters do. There are some underlying reasons for this, including some interesting cultural ones, but how do you reconcile the difference when you hadn't produced a competitive 100m runner in 2+ decades?
Andrew's decathalon bias is evident in his opinion about Soviet sports science. The broad range of competitive events makes some of the Eastern Block methods more attractive and logical.
********* What would be the cultural reasons that the methods 100 meter are different than the current ones ?