Polarized training

Commonly encapsulated by the 80/20 rule, is a training methodology where an athlete dedicates approximately 80% of their training volume to low-intensity efforts and the remaining 20% to high-intensity sessions. This model is founded on the principle of maximizing training efficacy by clearly demarcating the intensity zones to elicit specific physiological adaptations while minimizing the risk of overtraining and injury.

In the context of polarized training, low-intensity efforts are typically performed at an intensity below the first ventilatory threshold (VT1) or lactate threshold (LT1), where aerobic metabolism predominates and effort can be sustained for extended periods without significant fatigue. This zone is associated with enhancing basic aerobic capacity, improving fat metabolism, and promoting recovery. Athletes engaging in low-intensity training can maintain conversation comfortably, which is often referred to as the “talk test.”

High-intensity efforts, on the other hand, are conducted above the second ventilatory threshold (VT2) or lactate threshold (LT2), where anaerobic metabolism starts to play a significant role. Training in this zone improves VO2 max, enhances lactate clearance, and increases the body’s ability to perform at maximum effort for shorter durations. These sessions are characterized by intervals at or near maximum effort, separated by periods of rest or low-intensity exercise to allow partial recovery.

The polarized training model is distinguished by its avoidance of the ‘moderate-intensity’ zone, or the ‘gray zone,’ which lies between the two lactate thresholds. Training too frequently in this zone is thought to produce suboptimal adaptations compared to the targeted benefits of low and high-intensity training, potentially leading to a plateau in performance improvements and increased risk of fatigue.

This model aligns with the physiological rationale that distinct training intensities target different energy systems and adaptive responses within the body. By emphasizing a clear separation between low and high-intensity work, polarized training aims to optimize endurance performance, enhance recovery, and mitigate the adverse effects of overtraining, making it a favored approach among endurance athletes and coaches aiming for peak performance.

Does Training Volume Change the Approach?

Volume of Training Hours:

The principle of polarized training can be applied across different volumes of training. However, the practical application might slightly vary depending on the total training hours available.
– For athletes with a high volume of training hours (e.g., professional or highly dedicated amateur athletes), the 80/20 rule can be followed more strictly. The large volume allows for sufficient time to be dedicated to both low and high-intensity sessions without compromising recovery.
– For athletes with limited training hours (e.g., amateur athletes with time constraints), the distribution might slightly shift. While the essence of polarized training should still be maintained, the reduced training time may necessitate a more flexible approach to ensure that the athlete can still engage in both high-quality high-intensity sessions and adequate low-intensity training for recovery and endurance building.

Should You Switch to Pyramidal Training with Less Training Time?

Pyramidal Training

Pyramidal training is an approach to structuring training intensity distribution that involves a more even spread of effort across low, moderate, and high-intensity zones. Unlike polarized training, which emphasizes a clear separation between high volumes of low-intensity training and smaller volumes of high-intensity work, pyramidal training incorporates a significant portion of training at moderate intensity, with decreasing volumes as intensity increases. This results in a pyramid shape when visualizing the distribution, with the base representing low-intensity training, the middle tier moderate-intensity training, and the apex high-intensity training.

In pyramidal training, athletes spend most of their training time at a moderate intensity, which is typically defined as just below or at the lactate threshold (LT1) or between LT1 and the second lactate threshold (LT2). This approach is thought to optimize endurance adaptations by providing a balanced stimulus to both aerobic and anaerobic energy systems, improving lactate clearance, and enhancing cardiovascular and muscular endurance.

The rationale behind pyramidal training is that moderate-intensity training can offer a more sustainable and less fatiguing way to accumulate training load compared to high-intensity training, while still providing sufficient stimulus for adaptation. This method is particularly popular among endurance athletes who require a strong aerobic base, such as runners, cyclists, and triathletes, but it’s also used in various sports for conditioning purposes.

In summary, Pyramidal training is characterized by:
– A significant amount of training volume at moderate intensity, which helps improve endurance and efficiency.
– Lower volumes of low-intensity training, which aid recovery and maintain aerobic base without excessive fatigue.
– The least amount of training at high intensity, which is critical for developing peak performance capabilities, speed, and power.

Athletes using the pyramidal approach need to carefully monitor their training to ensure they are working at the correct intensities to maximize the benefits of each zone. This often involves using heart rate monitors, power meters, or perceived exertion scales to gauge intensity levels and adjust training loads accordingly..

Adaptation to Training Time: For athletes with limited training hours, there might be a temptation to shift towards a pyramidal approach to include more moderate-intensity efforts, under the assumption that it may offer more “bang for the buck.” However, this can potentially lead to overtraining and insufficient recovery, as moderate-intensity efforts demand significant recovery without providing the high stimulus of high-intensity sessions or the low stress of low-intensity training.

Maintaining Polarized Principles: Even with limited hours, maintaining a focus on polarized training by ensuring that most training is at a low intensity, with a deliberate allocation of time to high-intensity sessions, can be more beneficial. This approach promotes recovery, reduces injury risk, and aligns with long-term development and performance improvement.

Conclusion

– Regardless of training volume, the polarized training approach (80/20 rule) is recommended for endurance athletes. It’s crucial to adjust the application of this rule based on total available training hours, ensuring that both low and high-intensity sessions are performed effectively.
– Even with limited training hours, prioritizing the quality of high-intensity sessions and the recovery benefits of low-intensity training can lead to better outcomes than shifting towards a moderate-intensity-focused pyramidal model.
– Personalization and monitoring are key. Athletes should adjust their training based on individual responses, performance improvements, and recovery needs, potentially consulting with a coach for tailored advice.