In that case they wouldn’t be intensive tempo. They would need to be done with full, or nearly full, recovery and at 90% intensity or faster. Intensive tempo is sub 90% and wouldn’t be as effective for Max V or even Speed Endurance, would it?
Ummmm ok, if you so say.
I would start with 3-4 weeks of ext tempo, then move to int tempo starting out with 2-3 sessions of tempo 200’s before advancing to tempo 300’s.
Most people put it as anything under 95% and I believe that is how Charlie defines it in his materials. Even so, there are plenty of ways things under 90% can improve maximum velocity and speed endurance (especially in developmental athletes) via indirect mechanisms. There is also something some people here have called “controlled speed work”, which is actually stuff well below 95%, but has longer rests so may not fit in with the traditional definition of intensive tempo.
It’s extensive speed.
I’ve read about the indirect mechanisms etc. But I had always thought that for a 100/200m sprinter, those would be done in addition to shorter MaxV and Speed Endurance work. Since the OP was talking about doing only two days of running, is it being suggested he would be better off with intensive tempo instead of Max V and Speed Endurance and worry about MaxV work later? If so, why is intensive tempo better, in this particular situation, for developing 100/200m speed than traditional MaxV and SE?
so getting back on course, how much rest for 300’s at 85%? Or 200’s also?
As I said, I think max velocity stuff is great, but if you don’t have someone coaching it, it isn’t going to be nearly as good as-if you’re having them coached by people like Charlie and other elite coaches. In itself, the volume is extremely limited and if you aren’t running them with great technique, you’re ingraining even worse technique into the athlete(s). Further, most athletes that are developmental need to get in better shape anyway and flying 20s aren’t going to cut it a lot of times. Nobody runs close to meet speed in practice anyway, so a little bit slower with a lot more volume may have greater effects (especially when ground contacts aren’t completely different) on upright running than doing uncoached flying 20s or whatever else.
I’m not going to say that top speed isn’t important as it is probably the most important part of a training program for short sprinters, but I think the effect of coaching on those runs is quite understated and the physiological effects alone may not be as significant as everyone wants to believe. I think that’s why self-coached athletes or athletes who just have stopwatch coaches don’t get the same effects from doing pure top speed work and get crapped on by guys that do the old school cutdown tempo workouts and the like. Plus, intensive tempo is this ubiquitous term that encompasses different things. If you’re running @ 85-90%, but taking long rests (5 minutes or more) is it intensive tempo? You can probably handle much more volume and run more relaxed @ those speeds and still not have the ‘bad’ effects of what is sometimes called ‘intensive tempo.’
Are you doing those old school workouts? 
Talking about old school workouts, these are the fall workouts from one of the best d2 programs in the country.
fall:
mon: 4x300 60%
tue
8x150 75%
wed
1x800 all out
fri
2x6x100 13sec
I didn’t list the plyos, weights etc.
Maybe I should be! I did some in the fall.
What are the rest periods for these workouts?
I can find out. Tons of sprint drills and plyos.
At times when we do trials over 60m & 80m depending on conditions, our athletes run faster than they do at meets. But invariably of course the athletes rise to the occasion at a meet and run as fast if not faster at a meet than they did in training. The meets should replicate training form.
In my view it is almost impossible to run seriously fast if one has not done it training.
I am not advocating for people to not run fast in training. I am saying that due to the lack of adrenaline and other factors, people do not run as fast in practice. If you are having people race in practice, then you’ll have different results! I am talking about practice where people are generally running individually. Even when competing against others in practice, few run close to their best. I’ve experienced this myself and have talked to two guys recently who have run 6.5s in the 60m and neither approach their competition speeds in practice even when they are trying to run “fast” 30s, 60s, or whatever else. Most people do a crappy job handtiming in practice anyway. I’m talking about times either taken from video or timing gates.
Loren Seagrave has also said that none of his athletes come within something like 2-3% of their personal best in practice and most are something like 4-8% off for the majority of their runs (even when trying).
My main concern is when something of this nature is used BETWEEN speed sessions. That’s why I like to define anything like it as speed so people will think to separate it by 48 hrs.
Glad to see you are back and feeling okay!
That makes perfect sense in your template. I think where people, including myself at times, have gotten confused is just labeling anything under a certain % as a bad thing. I remember you mentioning before that you have even used it as a way of extreme unloading (instead of dropping to 95%, to even lower than that), but counting it as a “speed” session rather than as a “tempo” session.
What are your thoughts on the volume aspect that arises when you change the intensities? It seems as-if you can get more productivity out of a slightly higher volume workout that utilizes a bit less intensity, but similar rests versus relying solely on intensity as the main mode of development. I’m talking about developmental athletes BTW and more in the early special prep phases (versus pre-comp or comp).
I wouldn’t want to cause more confusion by trying to define the volume change but it will for sure be higher. Example from our training; Speed 95 to 100%, 4 x 30m blocks, 80, 100, 120, 150. = 570m
slightly sub max 4 x 30m blocks, very sub max 6 x 150. = 1020m
I guess the key thing to note with workouts below 95% is how much do the mechanics change and if you employ these sessions with alterned mechanics for a period of time what impact do they have on race mechanics.
Intensive tempo gets you fit very quickly but how do you translate that fitness across to improved performance at higher velocities? If you can work out how to use it to do this then you have a reason to use it. If you can’t then what is the point?
I agree, int tempo gets you fit very fast vs ext tempo that’s one of the reasons why I like this kind of work.