So I have read the paper you kindly put the link into this thread (Effects of six-week sprint interval or endurance training on calculated power in maximal lactate steady state). While it isn’t as bad as some other papers I’ve come across time and time again in the field of sports science (really, as an engineer I often face palm on basic logic and (non)appliance of basic scientific best practices) I have a few gripes with this paper.
First and foremost: it’s not really applicable - or rather, only in part. But that’s of course not the problem of the paper itself.
Why it’s not fully applicable?
a) It doesn’t try to answer any question in regard to low cadence and high torque
b) there is no tempo group in this study. There is a SIT group (Wingate Tests, Sprint) and an ET group (Endurance, but not at Tempo, it’s at 1,5-2,5 mmol blood lactate). The latter is a bit muddy with the inclusion of 2.0 to 2.5 mmol where you might could start to argue we are arriving at tempo. But isn’t everything muddy in this field? 
I would say, 1.5 to 2.5 puts it anywhere in Zone 2 (5-7 Zone model) or anywhere in Zone 1 (3 Zone polarized model).
c) said ET group which you might refer to with “tempo group” didn’t increase VLamax. You might have rememered that wrong. Said ET group hadn’t any change in VLAmax. But an even even greater change in VO2max than the SIT group
So that’s the start.
Then there is indeed the interesing data point that the for the SIT group a lowering of VLAmax was observed. But, what can we glean from this and from this one study alone?
a) a lowering occured only from Week 0 to Week 2. And then there was no change in the VLAmax.
All the usual caveats of controlled and short intervention spans aside - what does that even mean for a coach or an athlete? Does that mean: Sprinting reduces your VLAmax? Does it mean Sprinting reduces your VLAmax but only for two weeks and then you can sprint all you like, no changes occur? Does it mean, in this specific group, with this specific radical change in the training regimen it induced the observed VLAmax responce - but only after the first two weeks of intervention and then nothing? Certainly the latter, amongst other things.
Big caveat, mentionend by the authors themselves in the paper (among others): “First, the inter-participant variability is large for all groups and all parameters”. Can I conclude, that if a researcher is stressing that fact in a field where rather high variabilities are the norm that these variabilites where rather big even relative to other studies? I’d much appreciate if they would have given the results of the individuals. Which really, should be good practice and not be omitted. Given the fact that we talk about only 10 people in each of the 3 groups (SIT, ET and control)
So what individuals where in the group, then?
“the participants were young, healthy amateur cyclists (physical education students) who were recreationally active in sport, but not specifically trained for endurance or sprint cycling (61.45 ± 7.55 ml∙min-1∙kg-1, 0.75 ± 0.17 mmol∙L-1).” With a calculated PMSLSS of around 260 - 269 Watt at around 74 kg body weight.
Well, I find that cool, since that makes this group interesting for us mere mortals and very applicable for us. But then I do wonder:
- the SIT group only did 3 workouts per week consisting of 4 to 6 x 30 s Wingates with 4.5 mins Rest at 30 Watts inbetween. Resulting in 30 mins (first weeks) to max 40 mins (last week) of duration
- And the ET group did 3 1 hour workouts at 1.5 to 2.5 mmol bl pace
This is really low training. And what I find nearly more interesting than the VLAmax lowering (which just was observed between initial test pre-intervention and then first test after 2 weeks intervention) was the significant rise of VO2max in the ET group. From just 6 weeks with 3 x 1 hour nice rolling on the ergometer. And I don’t know what I should make out of this? How untrained the individuals would have to be to instill such an observed increase? But they couldn’t be that unfit? Or where they just dubbed “amateur cyclists” but haven’t seen their bikes for a year of studying?
There are other strange things in this study. Like putting the following sentence into the “limitations” section of the paper: “Furthermore, all participants of ET and SIT responded with an increase in PMLSS.” Well, duh! Of course they did since just a sentence before that they repeated the observed changes in VLAmax and VO2max and since in the whole paper the topic relates also on the calculation of PMLSS from these two parameters alone this outcome is a dependend outcome and not another result or even a confirmation of the other observations like one has to read it.
So in conclusion… one tiny tidbit of a data point (as is normal with most research) but not in any case a robust information one can use to dismiss any of any related discussion. One of which is ongoing in this thread. But a point for further investigations. Still ample to research. Exciting. 