Finally, a bit of sanity…good job Pakewi! 
They are very relevant to the discussion.
I described some of my “point of views” at this very issue in Homoeostasis Performance Model! It is not only important to develop particular abilites and skills but also the system that can cope with their increase…
In the first article out there I have seen two very interesting points. One that says that at high speed running the force is applied at about 25%… I want to be precise here. Does that mean ground contact ??? If it does then I’m sorry. I don’t beleive that my stride takes about 0.4 - 0.5 of a second. that would give me a frequancy of about 2 strides / second. That is not high speed running.
The other part says that cyclists get faster muscle fatigue. 2 times faster they say… Thats because they apply force for a long time. I totally agree with this… And its interesting to know that as ground contact times are reduced less muscle fatigue would occer resulting in, may be having a chance for continual acceleration to a higher top speed or maintaining a present one for a few more strides… But I’m still not sure about sprinters spending 25% of the stride time in producing the force…
In the second article at the very end there is a sentence stating:
As the sensation of fatigue is an emotion rather than a physical state, pacing strategies and thier control during self regulated exercise - the jouney and not just the end point - are probably the most important phenomena in exercise physiology
Too me this brings back 2 ideas presented in the forum. The idea of speed reserve and the idea (promoted by John Smith) of never completely reaching maximal speed. If indeed (as i suspect) relaxation of the muscle is more important than contraction then “speed endurance” as we know it is built around the foundations of improving maximal speed through pure speed work and then learning to run at 99.999% in a relaxed manner. Both of these things are a major focus of the short to long approach adding more weight to the arguement for its use (in case we didn’t have enough already).
Ever read the article “High running speed performance is largely unaffected by hypoxic reductions in aerobic power”
it must be understood that energy production and availability is not the reason an athlete slows down.
You guys really need to go and do some research about whats relevant to sprinting and sprinting performance.
Why not include “tempo” into your warm down, to get the benifits of increased blood flow?
Why would we spend large amounts of time attempting to do the opposite to what we are trying to achieve in sprinting?
Why would we practice releasing elastic energy at a much slower rate than what is required during sprinting, why? when you can get the so called benifits of tempo in a warm down after speed session. Why would we spend time training in contradition to what the spring mass model really tells us about sprinting?? Why? When we can get the benfits of tempo elsewhere? massage, active warm down, pool there are many ways to increase blood flow and heat to the muscle.
And for the other so called benifits of tempo
Increased capilliary density? Read “High running speed performance is largely unaffected by hypoxic reductions in aerobic power”. increase blood flow but how important at the cost?
Increased general cardiovascular fitness??
A sprinter needing cardiovascular fitness??
Increased work capcity??
Full ATP recovery should be used in all speed and speed endurance recoveries. Why on earth would increase cardio fitness be beneficially when this is that case?
Cardiovascular fitness has nothing to do with performance or training ability of sprinters.
NO, better aerobic fitness does not give you better speed edurance like many idiodic coaches and athletes still think- refer to spring mass model.
Finally, CNS fatigue and the benifits of tempo.
The mechanisms and causes of CNS are still very poorly understood and tempo has no backing in this regard. The body will tell you when the central nervous system is begining to fatigue, performance will drop. Combat CNS fatigue by teminating training immediatly when a rep drops below your average times.
In the weights room if you begin to struggle with a weight you previously have lifted comfortably, stop and for your next few weight sessions comlete a very low volume.
dont you think that some of the benifits of tempo are clearlys shown, when the TOP sprinters that use it in their training, are producing far superior results than most of those who don’t. isn’t that proof enough, i’m sure someone could do a research paper on top sprinters that used tempo and others that didn’t, and come up with a conclusion that there is benifits of tempo training, based on the performance’s these athlete’s are getting with it.
Different training programs have shown similar results. Some Olympic champs may have used tempo in their training. Some may have not.
What programme is better?
Doing tempo may play a role in regeneration but it does not add to running fast, it likely has a negtaive affect on speed! Athletes using significant amounts of tempo in their training (2-3 specific tempo sessions), would need to do a high volume of speed work on their speed days to get the same benifits as the alternative programme. Therefore the athlete would need to find a way to increase the capacity to do volume. This would be done by increasing the ability of the body to recovery in between reps. I can’t tell you how this is achieved because it can’t be talked about on this forum.
My alternative to the benifits of tempo is doing an active warm down or tempo as part of a warm down from speed, not individual tempo session!
What top sprinters??? none of the top sprinters would spend every second day trotting along at 75% because they are afraid of getting fatigued. Carl Lewis didnt do it, ive heard that Ben Johnson ditched cf’s tempo based program in favour of more high intensity workouts in 1984. Allyson Felix, Asafa Powell, they dont.
Some of the top athletes would do a bit of tempo, but theres no way it would be done as the sole session in a day, because apparently someone decided to invent the fact that it takes “48 hours for cns to recover”… any proof…and any proof of what the best athletes are doing? have you seen them train? or are u just referring to articles or posts youve found on the net
eerrr, ummm…afraid? I think were a little off course here…I dont think being afraid of high intensity workouts is the reasoning behind tempo.
Carl Lewis didnt do it, ive heard that Ben Johnson ditched cf’s tempo based program in favour of more high intensity workouts in 1984.
>???
Some of the top athletes would do a bit of tempo, but theres no way it would be done as the sole session in a day
I do tempo every other day, I also do a core workout, and other various activities; stretching, power clean technique, work…
because apparently someone decided to invent the fact that it takes “48 hours for cns to recover”
eerrrr, ummm…invent?
CFTS covers everything on tempo workouts
everyones so sensitive to tempo…
doing tempo every off day and training properly on the “on” days will help you run faster, but i think that better improvements could be gained by lower volume high intensity workouts on both days, because there is no proof that it takes 48 hours for cns to recover. So rather than hammer it one day, then spend the next doing slow tempo runs and a bit of core. Do track one day, weights the next, for six days then day off with massage, stretching etc.
If your hammering yourself so hard that you need a day away from anything with high intensity you are probably over training.
Tempo running is doing nothing for your speed and therefore shouldnt have such a big place in a sprint program.
This is just my opinion, some of the worlds best would use tempo, some wont. but better gains could be gained by spreading your high intensity throughout the week, rather than weights and track on one day then none the next.
You mean this article? the one with n=4 
Granted more people should focus on a decent cool down and recovery methods but understand not everyone can afford or has access to to massage on a regular frequent basis.
I guess the sentence some of the worlds best would use tempo, some wont. sums it up, there are those that swear by it and others who don’t.
I could reference 100 other articles showing the non importance of aerobic fitness in sprinting performance. If general phsyiology in humans was different maybe sample size would have been an issue.
Sprint performance, ok fine…how about its effect on recovery from sprint performance immediately after and days after, or its effect on warm-up duration? Are there any elite sprinters who do not have well developed aerobic systems? Were the studies done on college frat boys or the best sprinters in the world?
EH? Have you worked with anyone who runs fast or lifts extremely heavy? With the schedule you posit, it would take you about 72 hours to find yourself proof (if you were working with fast athletes, or athletes that can lift heavy), when the results came back and the performances were down.
If you don’t believe in CNS fatigue that is your business, I won’t argue with you. I would like to know your sources of information regarding Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson and Asafa Powell though. I don’t have proof that Carl Lewis did tempo but I think their group did, at least in the fall. Leroy Burrell has posted on the internet before and that program had plenty of tempo and I believe someone on this site once said they trained with Tom Tellez and they did tempo work in the fall. There are articles on this site and the internet from Clyde Hart and Michael Johnson detailing their workouts (and Jeremy Wariner’s). What would you call 9 x 200m with 90 seconds rest? I could be wrong but that sounds like tempo to me. Or 6 x 200m in 26 seconds for Michael Johnson? That would be tempo for a 19.32 sec 200m man. I have also heard that Donovan Bailey used Intensive tempo in the fall as well. I have not heard a lot about Asafa Powell’s training, if you have the inside track on his training methods or you have a reliable source please post it or point me in the right direction. I am not saying that with any sarcasm, I am genuinely interested and I am sure others on this site are. As for Ben Johnson, don’t you know that Charlie Francis was his coach until 1988? Have you read Speed Trap? I think you should read it before you post about Ben Johnson. I think he reads this fourm also.
We may not agree on tempo work but I respect your opinion and others’.
Sorry, Very valid points you have added. NOT
LOL, effect on warm up duration? are you serious?
I am sure many elite sprinters have fairly poor aerobic systems. Simply because sprinting is an oxygen debt event, aerobic capacity should have nothing to do with recovery between training reps if full ATP regeneration is considered.
The question being asked in this thread is, where is there proof for the benifits of tempo? where is there proof that CNS take 48 to recovery after high intesnity work??
If you are going to add to the discussion bring something to back up your answer not a load of bull like the need for tempo because its effect on warm up duration
Did he say he did not believe in CNS fatigue?? He said where is their evidence that it take 48 seconds to recover!
There is plenty of evidence that CNS fatigue exists but there is nothing that i have seen that has shown the exact causes of CNS fatigue and how long it takes to recover.
Thats the question being asked, where is this evidence? We are not interested in theories or what ben johnson did or did not do, we want to know where is there evidence for the benifits of tempo
In a training process targeting speed power events Tempo as a training modality may be required as part of a balancing act strategy,where and when a balancing act is needed.
I use tempo in my training, as part of a dynamic progressive warmup, and in the warm down before and after high intensity track sessions, but not much, just a couple. I simply dont agree with spending a whole track session dedicated to tempo running. theres no need, its a waste of time, energy and is of no benefit, and could have negative effects on sprinting.
And yes i have worked with athletes who lift heavy and run fast. running sub 10.4 and 21.0, and lifting in excess of 200kg in squat and 130kg bench. These guys recovered fine after there workouts and were able to repeat there efforts the next day, and every day throughout the preseason.
I am all about preventing cns fatigue, but it is my opinion, backed by several others, that you are better off training in lesser ammounts more frequently, so that you can improve at the greatest rate possible. Tempo sessions can be a waste of time if they are used too frequently, which by the sounds of it a lot of you do.
slower tempo like running in early stages of the season is fine, in order to allow the body to build up to high intensity slowly, rather than rush it and risk injury. But I dont see the need for tempo once you are adjusted to running fast, as this is whats needed to improve.
you are probably more likely to fatigue your nervous system to a greater extent by hammering it every second day with tempo in between rather than lowering the volume and style of high intensity workouts 6 times a week.
Improvement as an expression of positive adaptation is only and always fruit of multiple factors coming happily together.If your intention is to run fast, running fast may righteously be among them.