Does LTS vs STL Even Matter?

DEEP DIVE

Does LTS vs STL Even Matter?

Clyde Hart passed away at the start of this month. If you don't know the name, he's the legendary Baylor coach who guided Michael Johnson and Jeremy Wariner to Olympic gold. His death got me thinking about his training philosophy and what it actually represented.

Hart built his reputation on long to short (LTS) progression. Start the season with high-volume runs over 300-600 meters, building an aerobic base, then gradually shift toward race-specific speed as competition approaches.

But there's always been another view that takes the complete opposite approach.

Charlie Francis championed short to long (STL). Short sprints from day one. Maximum velocity work early and often. Build speed first, extend it later.

Two coaching legends. Two different approaches. Except when you look closer, they agreed on far more than the narrative suggests.

The debate between LTS and STL has dominated sprint coaching discussions for decades. Coaches pick sides. Athletes wonder which camp they belong in. Online forums turn into battlegrounds over periodization philosophy.

But research comparing the methods confirms what the results already suggested. A study on young athletes found no significant differences in sprint performance between short-distance and long-distance training groups. Both improved. Both worked.

The real differences weren't in the methods themselves, but in how they were executed and who they were applied to.

I experienced LTS training as a young athlete. My coach had us running cross country during general preparation. Fartlek sessions. Tempo runs that felt endless when all I wanted was to sprint.

I hated it.

Not because the method was inherently wrong, but because I felt constantly tired. My 60-meter times indoor never felt sharp. I always seemed to be grinding rather than flying.

Looking back, I wonder if it was the method or the execution.

We'd spend weeks building volume over longer distances, then the training would shift toward higher intensity sprint work. The transition felt jarring to me at the time. I even developed shin splints during that period.

Was it the shock of ramping intensity too quickly without adequate progression between phases?

I'll never know for certain. But the experience shaped how I think about training.

Later, at university, the approach changed. We ran a mile every Sunday during the early season, but during the week we hit the gym, did circuits, and worked on sprint-specific development. Speed was always present, even while maintaining an aerobic foundation.

That mixed approach worked better for me. I felt sharper. More ready when competition came.

The difference wasn't abandoning one method for another. It was maintaining speed throughout the season rather than reintroducing it after months away.

This is where Francis and Hart actually converged, even if their progressions looked different on paper.

Both understood that speed must be practiced to be maintained. Hart's LTS approach wasn't pure aerobic work followed by pure speed. His athletes at Baylor did technical sprint work throughout the year. They practiced mechanics even during high-volume phases.

Francis emphasized short sprints from day one, but his programs included tempo runs and extensive work for recovery and capacity building. He didn't ignore endurance entirely.

The rhetoric made them sound like opposites. The reality was more nuanced.

These weren't pure methods sitting on opposite ends of a spectrum. They were different emphases that still shared fundamental principles about what makes sprinters fast.

Both coaches understood that individual athlete profiles matter. Hart worked primarily with 400-meter runners who needed substantial aerobic capacity. Francis trained 100-meter specialists where maximum velocity was everything.

The events themselves demanded different emphases, which influenced their periodization choices.

Both coaches agreed that technical development is non-negotiable regardless of periodization. They agreed that strength and power work support sprint development. They agreed that recovery management determines whether any training plan succeeds or fails. I could go on.

The research bears this out. Studies on sprint periodization consistently show that both LTS and STL approaches can produce excellent results when properly implemented.

What makes the difference isn't which progression you choose. It's understanding the principles that make any method work, and executing with attention to detail.

The debate persists because it's easier to argue about methodology than to do the hard work of monitoring athletes, adjusting loads, and making smart decisions based on what's actually happening in training.

From my experience, maintaining speed throughout the year matters more than whether you start long or short. Technical work can't be neglected during any phase. And progression between training phases needs to be managed carefully, not rushed.

Those aren't LTS or STL principles. They're just coaching principles.

Hart's passing is a reminder that great coaching transcends methodology. His legacy isn't just long to short periodization. It's the attention to detail, the athlete-centered decision making, and the willingness to adjust based on response.

Francis left the same legacy, just packaged differently.

Maybe the question isn't which method is better. Maybe it's whether we understand the principles well enough to execute either one properly.

Speed needs to be practiced. Technical work matters throughout. Strength and power development are essential. Recovery determines whether any plan succeeds.

Hart and Francis agreed on all of it. They just got there in different ways.