Read my post and stop interpretting what you want to hear. I said there never would have been a major layoff in the first place. I never said I would have worked them when they were stale. Unless the athlete has a neck amputation or some other catastrophic injury the load NEVER has to be eliminated. I’ve likewise never said that I have the only “way to Rome”….in fact I frequently get on ET and talk about how intensive tempo based programs are clearly effective even though they are the polar opposite from my speed-power based setups. I’ll say similar things about other effective but contrary programs.
My contention is when someone makes claims and doesn’t back them up even when repeatedly asked to do so or when people get on here and talk down to others.
I am sorry you feel this way, but if you want you can refer to the literature of Bannister on Fitness-Fatigue models. It will explain the reason for super compensation, and it will also explain why staleness shouldn’t last 6 weeks. In this instance it’s hard to see a benefit with stressing her even more less than 2 weeks from her final meet. In fact after such a super compensation it’s better to rebuild from scratch as fitness was lost, but fatigue levels drop at a greater rate.
If you feel I am talking down to people here I will leave. I don’t want to be considered as such a person and if that is the type of person I am here then it’s best for me and the site. However, I also don’t want to have to cite something on every post either. I don’t care if people accept my opinion or knowledge or even speculation, but I will put it out there and stand by it. I don’t see a huge problem with that unless I am putting someone at risk and I am pretty sure that is not happening here. It’s your forum and site, you decide.