The tempo run has always been the most confusing thing to me, but maybe that is because it is confusing for everyone.
I'm wondering how I use the ideas of long and short tempos in the larger context of my training. Is running a 10 mile tempo, at a smidge faster than Marathon pace "better" for you than a 4 mile tempo, at 5k pace + 30 seconds? Do they tax significantly different systems? Should a long distance runner (5k/10k) progress from one type to the other over the course of the season? Should both be done, or can a runner do purely one type of tempo and perform well?
I guess my question boils down to:
For a 5k/10k runner, is there a significant reason to run a variety of tempo distances, or can they simply pick one tempo distance and pace (as a function of their fitness) and perform equally as well, when this is done over a long time line?
I tend to think that a progression over the course of time should take long distance runners from shorter tempos to longer tempos. This is not necessarily something that happens over the course of a season, but from year to year, fewer 20-25 minute tempos should be run, and more 45-60 minute tempos should be run. Am I correct?
Any thoughts or clarifications on this topic are welcome. I feel that the training stimulus from 4 miles of "fast" tempo is very very different than the stimulus from 10 miles of a more moderate tempo. I may be mistaken, but if I am, why would anyone ever choose to tempo for further than say, 5 miles?
Open my eyes please!