MAXIMAL AEROBIC SPEED vs TEMPO: Which is optimal for

team sport aerobic fitness?

Strength & conditioning and sport science are laden with topics, training methods and
philosophies that are highly contentious and divisive. Few debates have been more
divisive in recent years than tempo vs. maximal aerobic speed (MAS).

The tempo vs. MAS debate has caused countless social media quarrels, with each
entrant unwilling to budge from or concede their respective positions. I, too, admittedly
have been involved in the occasional social media debate, often passionately trying to
advocate for practitioners to appreciate, understand and apply “conditioning” in line
with its much more popular counterpart, strength training.

Understanding the source of anti-maximal aerobic speed arguments

In some social media circles and within certain sports, a very strong anti-MAS
sentiment permeates from a few influential social media figures. Most notable is Keir
Wenham-Flatt who, in addition to voicing his disapproval for MAS on various social
media platforms, has also published an article titled ‘9 reasons I don’t like MAS
training’. Wenham-Flatt wrote this article with rugby athletes in mind, so it is worth
acknowledging that rugby has significantly lower running demands than other team
sports like Australian Rules Football, field hockey or football (soccer). Even so, we
must not understate the aerobic fitness required to play competitive rugby. The aerobic
energy system underpins a player’s ability to recover from high intensity actions
(scrum, tackle, grapple, etc)

While the article raises some valid points, it, like a lot of the other anti-MAS broadsides,
fails to truly grasp and understand MAS as a conditioning concept.

The article compares the training methods of the most successful endurance athletes
with the characteristics of MAS training highlighting that endurance athletes dedicate
much of their training volume to low intensity work, with only a moderate volume of
high intensity efforts. This is correct, but it necessarily must be given that endurance
athletes often accrue more than 15 hours of physiologically based training every week.
The magnitude and physiological cost of this training volume requires endurance
athletes to perform most of their training in Zone 1 of the three zone model, which
corresponds to heart rate <80% of their maximum heart rate (Figure 1).

The inference the article fails to make is that for a lot of endurance runners velocity at
VO2max (vVO2max) is the intensity measure that guides and prescribes their training.
When you consider that MAS is a derivative of vVO2max, we reinforce the case for
using an objective intensity measure, such as MAS, to prescribe training across the
intensity continuum.
Figure 1: Three zone intensity model

The article also correctly points out that technical training – rugby training, in that
instance – often results in the acute physiological stimulus falling right in the moderate
intensity zone, i.e., Zone 2 in Figure 1. However, the article then wrongly infers that
“Likewise MAS intervals fall in the middle zone: neither easy nor maximal.” This is a
misrepresentation of MAS training. When used correctly as an intensity measure, MAS
allows you to prescribe training to elicit “easy,” “moderate” or “hard” sessions per the
session objectives or periodisation phase.

Moreover, employing MAS to prescribe conditioning for team sports often results in a
high intensity stimulus rather than a moderate stimulus. Consequently, high intensity
interval training (HIIT) is the cornerstone of my team sport conditioning programs for
a wide range of sports. The rest of this article will focus on dispelling some of the
common MAS and conditioning misconceptions, while also covering the intricacies of
tempo and MAS training for improving aerobic fitness for team sports.

Maximal aerobic speed’s objective root in vVO2max

Understanding MAS and its application for conditioning prescription requires

practitioners to understand its origins and foundational research. Aerobic fitness is
accurately assessed using maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) techniques, with
laboratory based VO2max testing being the gold standard. From VO2max, we can
derive parameters such as velocity at VO2max and use them to quantify training
intensities for interval-based aerobic energy system conditioning.

Daniels and Scardina introduced the vVO2max concept, defining it as the minimal
velocity associated with VO2max as determined by an incremental treadmill test. The
validity and reliability of the vVO2max measure are virtually unassailable, yet its
practical application is problematic for most practitioners. vVO2max testing requires
expensive equipment, specific expertise, extensive resourcing and, most
problematically for team sports, is incredibly time consuming, with each test limited to
a single athlete.
Maximal aerobic speed is a derivative of vVO2max developed to address these
deficiencies. MAS is the minimal speed that elicits maximal oxygen consumption via
a field-based test. The original research that investigated how to determine MAS using
field-based tests employed the Universite de Montreal Track Test (UMTT). More
recent research has considered a myriad of different field-based testing options, which
include both self-paced (i.e. time trials) and incrementally paced (beep test, yo-yo IR1
test, 30-15 intermittent fitness test) tests to determine a valid and reliable MAS

Middle- and long-distance runners had historically been the beneficiaries of high
intensity interval training using MAS as the intensity measure, resulting in significant
improvements in aerobic outputs. Unsurprisingly, these methods have since been
applied to a wide range of team sports and athletes, with evident improvements in
aerobic fitness, physical output and competition performance.

Where does tempo running enter the picture

Tempo running gained popularity courtesy of Charlie Francis and his use of tempo
runs to condition his sprinters. As such, tempo running remains closely linked to a
track & field approach for conditioning, which has resonated strongly with certain
sports, such as both rugby codes.

Unlike MAS, HIIT or more objectively prescribed conditioning, tempi running is

prescribed as a percentage of an athlete’s maximum speed, with the aim to complete
the prescribed session at the same speed throughout. More specifically, two
fundamental types of tempo runs are regularly performed: extensive tempo and
intensive tempo. Extensive tempo sessions are generally lower intensity and include
an incomplete recovery period; whereas intensive tempo sessions are, as the name
would suggest, more intense courtesy of the increase in running speed and recovery
time.

Despite what some coaches and practitioners like to think, tempo runs are not the
panacea for aerobic and anaerobic development. Rather, they are a very effective
training type to elicit controlled high speed running while reinforcing high speed
running kinematics. When tempo running is appropriately prescribed and periodised,
it can facilitate improvements in anaerobic capacity and aerobic fitness. However, I
tend to be apprehensive with team sports that have a significant running load and high
aerobic fitness requirement. Using tempo running to target aerobic fitness
improvement could potentially produce a sub-optimal stimulus and inadequate session
loading.

MAS is a measure, not a session type

Contrary to popular opinion, MAS can be the basis of a myriad of HIIT sessions,
including long HIIT, short aerobic HIIT, short supramaximal HIIT and short anaerobic
supramaximal HIIT.

After determining an accurate MAS value, practitioners can accurately and effectively
prescribe these HIIT sessions using a specific MAS intensity range (%MAS) that has
 been investigated and validated through peer reviewed research. That is, the research
helps us ascertain what %vVO2max or %MAS maximises time at or near VO2max for
a specific HIIT session. Ultimately, we can determine which sessions are optimal for
improving aerobic fitness.

However, MAS isn’t the only way to prescribe HIIT, with tempo running commonly
prescribed for both aerobic and anaerobic sessions. More commonly, tempo running
is used to decide the distance for interval sessions, such as 100s, 150s or 200s, all of
which are generally prescribed subjectively and with a more favourable rest to work
ratio (i.e. 150s in 22-24 seconds on 90 seconds). Athletics looms over these sessions,
as evidenced by the distances listed above. They are also very popular with particular
coaches and sports, with both rugby codes favouring tempo running.

A key argument provided by staunch devotees of tempo running is that, unlike more
traditional conditioning methods such as HIIT or fartlek training, tempo running results
in less interference with speed, strength and power development. This argument could
well be correct. However, does using tempo runs over HIIT result in an inferior aerobic
fitness stimulus?

One of the primary issues associated with using tempo running to improve aerobic
fitness for team sport athletes is that the details of the tempo sessions often contradict
the plethora of scientific evidence on conditioning methods to improve aerobic fitness.
Most egregiously, the typical tempo work-to-rest ratios of 1:3 to 1:4 invert the optimal
work-to-rest ratio for aerobically focused HIIT sessions, which range from 1:1 to 3:1.
This results in an inferior acute physiological stimulus, as the excessive rests and low
volumes of work blunt the primary physiological drivers of aerobic fitness adaptation.

The MAS HIIT vs. Tempo table (Table 1) highlights the difference in session
prescription between an objectively prescribed MAS HIIT session and a traditional
tempo running session. The table makes it clear that the MAS HIIT session better
accommodates the variation in aerobic fitness levels across a team, as denoted by
the four MAS groups. This variation in aerobic fitness results in a 31 meter difference
per 30 sec rep when comparing the fittest group to the least fit group. Additionally, the
work-to-rest ratio for the two sessions is drastically different, with tempo running often
utilising a ratio with more rest than work, which adversely impacts the aerobic fitness
stimulus compared to the MAS short HIIT session.

Average Recovery Work

Work rep Work Rep Session
HIIT Prescription MAS Session rep rep to
Sets Reps duration intensity distance distance
type method (m.s) info speed duration rest
(min:sec) (%) (m) (km)
(m.s) (min:sec) ratio

5.33 2 sets x 160 5.33 00:15 2:1 2.6

Short Maximal 8 reps
‘aerobic’ aerobic 2 8 00:30 100%
HIIT speed 30 sec
4.94 @ 148 4.94 00:15 2:1 2.4
100%
 4.60 MAS 138 4.60 00:15 2:1 2.2
with 15
sec PR

4.30 129 4.30 00:15 2:1 2.1

N/A 2 sets x 2 8 00:28 N/A 150 5.36 01:02 ~1:2 2.4

8 reps

150m in
Tempo 26-28
sec
N/A going 2 8 00:26 N/A 150 5.77 01:04 ~1:2 2.4
every
90 sec

Table 1: MAS HIIT vs Tempo

While tempo running in its traditional form might not be optimal for inducing aerobic
fitness improvements, tempo running is a more viable option for anaerobically focused
HIIT sessions, which facilitate the exposure to controlled high speed running. This type
of tempo running can bridge the gap between the expected game demands for high
speed running and the high speed running levels of training sessions.

For example, an athlete might have a high speed running target of 300m, but during
the technical training session only records 200m of high speed running, leaving a
deficit of 100m. Coaches can address this deficit with a tempo session specifically
devised to accrue ~100m of controlled high speed running. Crucially in this scenario,
the tempo session can be completed in a controlled manner to mitigate injury risk,
especially when the alternative would be trying to address the deficit via expansive
technical training drills to facilitate the work rate and speed required to hit high speed
running targets.
We often hear that MAS can only be used for aerobic HIIT from coaches and
practitioners who don’t understand that MAS is an intensity measure and not a HIIT
session.

In fact, MAS can be used to prescribe anaerobic HIIT sessions, what I like to refer to
as short anaerobic supramaximal HIIT sessions. These sessions can use a
percentage of MAS (e.g., 130% MAS). Given the running speeds associated with
these types of sessions, this can lead us to imposing an inconsistent stimulus.
Therefore, I instead recommend integrating MAS with anaerobic speed reserve (ASR).
Including ASR accounts for an athlete’s maximum speed alongside their aerobic
fitness, which, in turn, results in a considerably more consistent HIIT session
prescription.
 Max Anaerobic Intensity Supramax Supramax
Max Max
Prescription aerobic speed prescription rep rep
Athlete speed speed
method speed reserve %ASR vs duration distance
profile (km/h)
(m.s) (km/h) %MAS (sec) (metres)

MAS +
A Fast 34.0 17.8 84.2
%ASR

MAS +
B Average 31.0 14.8 22.5% 81.4
%ASR
4.50 15

MAS +
C Slow 28.0 11.8 78.6
%ASR

D N/A %MAS N/A N/A 120% 81.0

Table 2: Short surpamaximal HIIT prescription

Team sport application: Consistency of stimulus is key

Maximal aerobic speed really comes to the fore in team sport settings, where you are
often contending with large group sizes and potentially a problematic coach-to-athlete
ratio, especially when working in sub-elite sporting environments. In this context, MAS
is unparalleled compared to subjective conditioning methods (e.g., fartlek training) and
small sided games. MAS ensures the stimulus is consistent and effective. This is
particularly important considering how dramatically aerobic fitness levels and physical
capability can vary across a team; and how not accounting for that variation can lead
to an inconsistent aerobic stimulus and inferior aerobic adaptation.

With that in mind, MAS is the cornerstone of my team sport conditioning programs and
periodisation. By accurately determining MAS using a valid and reliable field based
aerobic fitness test, we can prescribe consistent and effective HIIT to improve both
the aerobic and anaerobic energy systems. It would be almost impossible to achieve
this with other conditioning methods, even small sided games, tempo or fartlek
training. Those methods rely too much on athletes to direct their own intensity, which
can lead to highly variable and erroneous session output and, subsequently, inferior
physiological adaptation.

The MAS Prescription Examples table (Table 3) highlights maximal aerobic speed’s
versatility for conditioning sessions that span much of the intensity continuum, ranging
from continuous running sessions to short supramaximal HIIT sessions. Again, this is
because MAS is an intensity measure and not a conditioning session.

Table 3 shows sessions that I have prescribed for either endurance or team sport
athletes using MAS as the intensity measure. Consistent with Table 1 (MAS vs
 Tempo), I have prescribed all the sessions using two markedly different MAS values
to highlight how much of an impact using %MAS can have on the prescribed session.
This is evident in the prescribed speeds and distances for each of the sessions, with
the fitter group running at faster speeds and covering more distance per rep.

Last, this also impacts session distance for both MAS groups, with the fitter group
again accumulating more distance, which is often desirable as those athletes with a
higher MAS value tend to play in positions that have a higher running demand in
competition.

Work rep Recovery Work

Work Work/rep Session
Prescription MAS Session Set Rep duration Work Work rep to
Session type intensity distance distanc
method (m.s) info s s (min:sec (m.s) (km/h) duration rest
(%MAS) (m) e (km)
) (min:sec) ratio

5.25 1 1 20:00 3.68 13.2 4410 N/A N/A 4.4

20 min
Continuous easy 70%
run
4.75 1 1 20:00 3.33 12.0 3990 N/A N/A 4.0

5.25 2 reps x 1 2 08:00 4.73 17.0 2268 02:00 4.5

8 min @
90%
MAS
Threshold HIIT with 2 90% 4:1
min
4.75 passive 1 2 08:00 4.28 15.4 2052 02:00 4.1
recover
y

5.25 4 reps x 1 4 04:00 4.86 17.5 1166 02:00 4.7

4 min @
92.5%
Maximal
MAS
aerobic
Long HIIT with 2 92.5% 2:1
speed
min
4.75 passive 1 4 04:00 4.39 15.8 1055 02:00 4.2
recover
y

5.25 2 sets x 2 8 00:45 5.12 18.4 230 00:15 3.7

8 reps

45 sec
@
Short ‘aerobic’ 97.5%
97.5% 3:1
HIIT MAS
with 15
4.75 2 8 00:45 4.63 16.7 208 00:15 3.3
sec
passive
recover
y

5.25 4 sets x 4 8 00:15 120% 6.30 22.7 95 00:15 1:1 3.0

8 reps
 15 sec
@
120%
Short
MAS
‘supramaximal’ 4.75 4 8 00:15 5.70 20.5
with 15
HIIT
sec
passive
recover
y

Table 3: MAS prescription examples

MAS is extremely valuable, but is still only one of many tools

Behind this article is my 15+ years of hands-on experience and background in strength
& conditioning and sport science across a wide variety of sporting associations,
professional sports clubs and elite junior athlete pathways within the Australian
sporting system. I have devoted years of my career to researching, studying, analysing
and applying conditioning principles and methods to maximise physiological
adaptation, improve sporting performance and mitigate injury risk. This has culminated
in a number of conditioning related research papers and conference posters as well
as presentations specifically covering the MAS concept and its application with team
sport athletes

Whilst I think MAS is an effective, consistent and versatile conditioning option for both
team sport and endurance athletes, it is not the panacea for aerobic fitness
improvement. It is merely one of several training options – including fartlek,
continuous, tempo, small sided games and cross training – that can induce aerobic
adaptation in team sport athletes.

Before any practitioner can deliberate whether MAS HIIT is a viable conditioning option
for their athletes, they must have an adequate understanding of the background,
scientific underpinnings and intricacies of the MAS concept. Far better than what is
typically overheard in discussions or blared on social media. By investing that time
and effort, they will be able to make an informed and educated decision about whether
and how to include the MAS HIIT concept in their training program.