Why would a sprinter encorporate tempo running into there sprint program?
this has been beaten into an unrecognizable pulp by now, but the summary is this:
1)it helps recovery by increasing blood flow, and providing a mechanical stimulus for the corect (unidirectional) repair of colagen
2)it increases cappilary density to the muscle which a)helps with recovery b)lowers electrical resistance to motor nerve end plates (where the nerve touches the muscle fiber that is)
3)helps you remain lean in a safe (from a CNS exaustion perspective) way. Withough grossly altering the mechanics of sprint (though i have to admit, after my shins got in the game, i have a preference towards non impact tempo-maybe not as effective but doesnt hurt:()
4)increases general cardiovascular fitness.
the potential benefits of tempo running in no way outweigh the negatives.
increased blood flow to the area during exercise wouldnt help recovery as the increased flow is due to the increased demand of running, NOT the muscle recovering. If there is a great need for muscle fibres to heal from collagen clotting, then you have WAY over trained, and damaged the muscle.
Increased capillary density is due to an adjustment to the aerobic capacity of muscle, if this is occuring in the muscle, you are training aerobic production of energy (which occurs minimally,<20%, in sprinting), which will encourage the use of slow twitch muscle fibres.
Cannot see how and would like to see any proof of its advantages on any so called motor neuron resistance.
true that it would help you remain lean, and wouldnt exhaust your cns, but if you are consistently taking days off in order to do tempo, you a) are training too hard on the days in which you actually do something which is effective towards sprinting. and b) are training your muscles to run slowly, and detraining your fast twitch anaerobic fibres which are used in sprinting.
Tempo could be useful every so often, but consistently doing it as a part of a sprint program would be a waste of time, and would not be at all beneficial, proper cool down, and more sessions of less volume would decrease any need for tempo, and would be less taxing on cns.
How about ANS regulation and increasing work capacity?
If you intend to have a full time programme what else would you like to have on the non high intensity days instead? Total rest? Would this really allow supercompensation as much as active recovery?
Do you really think 5000m of tempo in 13-15s for a 10 flat runner will change all those fast twitch fibres to slow twitch?
What would you do instead?
Well… I’d like to know too. There is this big gap in my head about tempo. My best ever times came when I was training with absolutly no tempo or long running. But at the same time I truly believe in tempo and its benefits. I really want to clear all this up. Please…
There really is nothing to clear up, if you believe that a 15 min. cool down session at the end of high intensity work followed by a complete day of inactivity will best prepare your cns for the next raining session, then you keep doing what you are doing. If however, you realize the importance of maintaining the support elements of high performance and the value of regeneration and supercompensation, you incorporate tempo work into your training.
the potential benefits of tempo running in no way outweigh the negatives.
increased blood flow to the area during exercise wouldnt help recovery as the increased flow is due to the increased demand of running, NOT the muscle recovering. If there is a great need for muscle fibres to heal from collagen clotting, then you have WAY over trained, and damaged the muscle.
Increased capillary density is due to an adjustment to the aerobic capacity of muscle, if this is occuring in the muscle, you are training aerobic production of energy (which occurs minimally,<20%, in sprinting), which will encourage the use of slow twitch muscle fibres.
Cannot see how and would like to see any proof of its advantages on any so called motor neuron resistance.
true that it would help you remain lean, and wouldnt exhaust your cns, but if you are consistently taking days off in order to do tempo, you a) are training too hard on the days in which you actually do something which is effective towards sprinting. and b) are training your muscles to run slowly, and detraining your fast twitch anaerobic fibres which are used in sprinting.Tempo could be useful every so often, but consistently doing it as a part of a sprint program would be a waste of time, and would not be at all beneficial, proper cool down, and more sessions of less volume would decrease any need for tempo, and would be less taxing on cns.
well, you are wrong:p
but you might as well try for your self, do some tempo in between speed sessions and see how you feel, no point in arguing if the apple will fall of the table, just push it
well. I hate this. If someone doesn’t talk while backed up by some sort of scintific evidance or maybe a successful trial then just don’t talk. I do tempo all the time now but I have deep douts about it. When someone comes up and say. " OHH NO TEMPO " I start thinking and things don’t go so well. The wrong kind of posts on a forum like this is no joke guys I’m serious…
Zap, don’t be discouraged from posting your considered opinions. This is a healthy discussion/debate so far…
In certain cases this is the greatest benefit as at times athletes simply aren’t aerobically fit enough.
Agreed, let the man speak.
Everyone thought the world was flat at one time too. Don’t discount a theory just because it isn’t the “norm”.
Interesting the discussions in the expert section these days… :rolleyes: Just jokin mate, welcome to the board. Just be sure to check where your posting 
SeanJos
I disagree, I have had the most success using tempo in my program. Some of the world’s best sprint coaches use it also: Charlie Francis, John Smith, Clyde Hart. I will also provide another objective opinion from Marshall Burt. The following excerpt is from another forum years ago before Charliefrancis.com existed. They were have a discussion about the usefullness of tempo workouts like 8 x 200m. I have posted this before but here goes:
I would like to know how everyone feels about the concept of tempo training for sprinters. I would appreciate your reasoning as to whether you believe in it or not. An example of what I am talking about might be 8 or more 200 repetitions at say 30 seconds for a 48 second 400 runner with 90 seconds or even 3 min rest. I don’t believe it help a sprinter reach their potential, and that any good results from a consistent diet of these types of workouts could be harmful. I am having this argument with a few people and am having a difficult time convincing them. I am very interested in as many opinions as possible. Thanks for the input.
– Stan Croft, November 3, 2000
Answers
The workout you described [if done with relatively short rest (i.e. 2 1 - 2 minutes), and sufficient number of repetitions (i.e. 6 - 9)], it would be a very potent stimulus for increasing the amount of energy [ATP] the athlete can produce aerobically…which addresses one of the major mechanisms of performance, Recruitment Duration [duration in which high level muscle fiber recruitment can be maintained]. This workout would be a high velocity aerobic workout, necessary for full development of the athlete.
Well trained [aerobically] 400m runners should be able to run a 400 at an average 200m pace that is within 1.5 to 2 seconds of their fastest 200.
If he can run 21.5 for example, 21.5 + 2 = 23.5 x 2 = 47 for a 400m.
I think you’ll find this area of fitness lacking in most sprinters. For example…there are 30 American men at or under 20.5 for 200m, but only 12 at or under 45.0 for 400m. [20.5 + 2 = 22.5 x 2 = 45.0]
There are 50 American women at or under 23.5 for 200m, but only 7 at or under 51. [23.5 + 2 = 25.5 x 2 = 51.0]. Marita Koch’s name did not show up on the east German doping lists…she ran 200m around 21.7 which should produce something in the 47’s for a 400 [21.7 + 2 = 23.7 x 2 = 47.4]. Her best was 47.6, the current world record.
The 400m can be considered an “anaerobic” event, simply because people fail to train aerobically for it…at high velocities.
In general, distance runners do the same. One can argue that an 800m runner should be able to run 800m at an average 400m pace that is within 5 seconds of their best 400m. This year, there were 50 American men at or under 46 seconds for 400m [46 + 5 = 51 x 2 = 1:42]. There were zero American men at or under 1:42, only 1 at or under 1:44. Seb Coe reportedly had a 400m best [relay split] of 46 for 400m [46 + 5 = 51 x 2 = 1:42] and a personal best at 800m of 1:41.7.
This year, there were 50 American women at or under 53.5 for 400m [53.5 + 5 = 58.5 x 2 = 1:57]. There were zero American women at or under 1:57, and only 3 at or under 1:58. Keep in mind that the American record holder at 800m has run 49 low for a 400 [49 + 5 = 54 x 2 = 1:48], her 800m record is 1:56. She ran 50 low for a 400m this year [50 + 5 = 55 x 2 = 1:50]. The world record is 1:53…which many people in our sport believe to be an “unbelievable” time.
We can continue with this on up through to the 10,000m. Recruitment, Recruitment Rate…“and”!..Recruitment duration must be addressed in one’s training program.
– Marshall Burt, November 3, 2000
“The 400m can be considered an “anaerobic” event, simply because people fail to train aerobically for it…at high velocities.” - Burt.
Very stimulating post Earle.
Mr Burt is right on the money with what he says on the 400m (personal opinion)…for me the major question relates to the statement he made, above, and his pointed comment “at high velocities”.
The question(s) for me is How High? And then, How Often, How Far Into The Season, etc.
Charlie likes to keep his tempo at velocity less than 75% 1rm, and Hart seems to agree. They demonstrate a large differentiation between their types of running.
I took my 400m sprinters to more race-specific velocities (like repeat 200s at second-half of 400m race pace, off 2min or shorter recoveries for 5 to 6 reps, as did some of the ancients, ie Lee Evans).
We had some success, but not on a scale of a Ben or Michael Johnson. How much of their success can be put down to “nature” or “nurture” we will never know.
So I still question my assumptions to this day, which is why this thread on tempo interests.
At first I found questioning tempo kind of silly, but then thought: If tempo is so good, why shouldn’t lifters do it? My BP day was yesterday. Should I bench again today with 150 lbs. for easy reps?
Some elite lifters do general prep work on their off days too. For them it’s often sled drags, forwards or backwards, medball, even high rep bodyweight squats. Check out Westside Barbell’s take on GPP.
Louie’s reasons for GPP partly overlap the reasons usually given for tempo, hmm. I’ve been too lazy to incorporate more GPP, but yeah, I should.
:rolleyes:
Just to add more meat to this everlasting key discussion:
http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=8319&SnID=422805521
http://bjsm.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/38/4/511
The two articles would not seem directly related to this discussion,as they mostly concern the Speed / High Intensity part of the game. But is that truly so? I really think they may help to better structure the whole scenario here…
These words make a LOT of sense. I would like to thank you for it all. Yes. But then. Sometimes one could skip the tempo sessions and produce great gains. and when switching to tempo on day between 2 high intensity days. Results seems to stop coming. It does happen. How come. There should be a reason. I would love to know any reason why this happens?? Well. I know someone will come up and say… Do whats good for you… Yeah ok. But I really do believe in the benefits of Tempo but can’t get why this kind of thing happens with me.
I and several of my athletes have found our BP goes up when pushups are in the programme. Perhaps because of the improvement in work capacity and thier low intensity regenerative capacity. We only ever do the push ups to the point where we feel tired not to fatigue.