Tempo is an interesting subject. What does it do exactly? What about bike routines? One interesting discussion in the Kinetics Manual was the different conditioning tests versus monitoring. I am convinced that testing matters and monitoring training as some believe is letting the inmates run the asylum and is just trying to pan for gold with GPS and HR data. The key differences between monitoring recovery and monitoring conditioning can be summed up is the following statement:
Monitoring recovery is looking at changes in fatigue markers with athletes and most of the efforts is on decay rates. Monitoring conditioning is the performance changes that must exist in order to see biological adaptation or improvement.
Mixed training environments done conservatively just keeps the athlete at the same point of development and time just seems to drift by, missing the opportunity to get better. Now I am interested in seeing changes in a Yo Yo test or 30-15 from training, and seeing modified SAHRRT (South African Heart Rate Recovery tests) use with HRV testing to see how training loads and specific running velocities work to make adaptations. Neil is looking at various arguments and testing research studies by internal testing. I strongly suggest his work to help crowdsource and crowdfund innovation.