A training schedule that is polarised has the majority of the training stress at either a low or high intensity. In contrast to other training methods, a polarised training plan spends little to no time at a moderate level.
Polarised training: What is it?
A method of structuring and distributing intensity within a training plan is polarised training, a particular kind of training intensity distribution (in running or in other sports).
Utilising a method known as periodisation, effective training schedules successfully balance training stress with recovery over time. Plans can be divided into several time periods, such as annual, monthly, weekly, or block-by-block cycles, to better reflect the overall pattern of stress and recuperation. A periodised framework can be used to organise training stress using training intensity distributions like polarised training.
Common Distributions of Training Intensity
– High Volume Low Intensity Training (Long Slow Distance) is a type of exercise that consists primarily of long, low-intensity exercises and is frequently used as base training.
– Threshold Training – Training that takes place largely at moderate intensities is known as threshold training (THR), which should not be confused with the threshold power zone or threshold intervals (these are actually high-intensity efforts)
– High Intensity Interval Training – Training that consists mostly of brief, arduous efforts at a high intensity and low volume is known as high intensity interval training (HIIT).
– Pyramidal training (PYR) involves training at a variety of intensities, with the majority of time spent at low effort, the majority of time spent at moderate level, and the least amount of time spent at high intensity.
– Polarized Training (POL): Predominantly high- or low-intensity exercise with little or no moderate-intensity exercise.
However, this varies from study to study and is further complicated by how training duration is recorded. Polarised training intensity distributions are most frequently specified in research as 80% low intensity and 20% high intensity. Depending on the ratio of low-intensity to high-intensity days or sessions, some studies determine the overall intensity for each training day (or for individual training sessions). Other researchers quantify intensity distribution by measuring the actual time spent in a particular intensity zone throughout each workout, or time-in-zone. Due to the fact that an exercise that is deemed “high intensity” may actually just contain a short period of high-intensity exertion, these two approaches might result in quite different definitions of what Polarised training entails.
Polarised training differs significantly from other training intensity distributions, even accounting for measurement and definition errors. In a Polarised training programme, the majority of sessions are low intensity, just a few are very challenging, and very few fall in the middle. Dr. Stephen Seiler developed the idea of polarised training after observing the training practises of professional rowers.
What is Intensity?
Understanding how intensity is truly defined is essential since polarised training is a method of dispersing intensity in a training programme. One can gauge the level of training stress using pace, heart rate, perceived exertion, and power. Researchers frequently employ training zones based on power output while studying cycling. The majority of polarised training research (as well as the remainder of this blog post) makes use of a more basic 3-zone model that is relevant to all endurance sports and is calculated in relation to VO2 max and lactate threshold.
The 3-Zone Intensity Model
1. Zone 1 (low intensity) spans from 50% of an athlete’s VO2 max to Lactate Threshold 1, or LT1, which is the point at which blood lactate levels start to rise. Zone 1 does not include active recovery running done at less than 50% of maximum oxygen uptake.
2. Between Lactate Threshold 1 (LT1) and Lactate Threshold 2, or Zone 2 (moderate), blood lactate levels start to climb significantly. Blood lactate levels of 4.0 mmol/L are frequently used to determine LT2, but this varies greatly from athlete to athlete.
3. Any time spent above LT2 falls under Zone 3 (high-intensity). In actuality, this entails the majority of riding above FTP.
Some studies utilise ventilatory thresholds rather than lactate thresholds to identify zones in an effort to make the 3-zone model easier to understand for athletes who do not have access to blood-lactate testing. The lactate thresholds LT1 and LT2 and the ventilatory thresholds VT1 and VT2 roughly (but not exactly) correspond to each other. For runners, Zone 1 is defined by Dr. Stephen Seiler as being between 50% and 79% of FTP, Zone 2 as being between 80% and 99%, and Zone 3 as being at 100% of FTP or higher. It’s crucial to remember that criteria for each zone might differ, even in the study literature. Additionally, it can vary from person to person how lactate or ventilatory thresholds connect with percentages of VO2max power or FTP.
Polarising Semantics
The verb “polarise” is frequently used by runners to indicate a shift in emphasis away from moderate effort and towards more high- and low-intensity training, which adds another point of misunderstanding to the discussion surrounding polarised training. Although polarised training is defined as a structured distribution of training intensity, athletes frequently discuss “polarising” their training.
It’s crucial to distinguish when someone uses the term “polarisation” in reference to a casual decrease in moderate-intensity training or a more deliberate and planned training intensity distribution, known as Polarised training. The official, scientific definition of polarised training is used whenever it is mentioned in this article.
Polarised training research
The study of polarised training in endurance sports is expanding. Numerous studies have discovered that, particularly in the near term, it can lead to specific performance benefits that are equal to or larger than those produced by various alternative training intensity distributions. Pyramidal training may be equally as effective as Polarised training for enhancing some performance indicators, according to other studies.
Research on Polarised training is now being conducted across a variety of endurance sports, with frequently mentioned studies concentrating on skiers, runners, or rowers. Studies that specifically focus on cycling are scarce and have only lately appeared in the literature. To date, it has been challenging to draw conclusions about cycling’s real-world applications due to the studies’ tightly controlled protocols, constrained periods, and small sample sizes.
There is some evidence that Polarised training can be successful, even though it is just limited to cycling. However, it is unclear whether Polarised training is appropriate for all athletes in all situations. Studies, for instance, indicate that depending on an athlete’s training condition, polarised training may have varied effects on them. In other words, it may matter if the player is still learning the sport or is a seasoned pro. Further research is needed to determine whether combining blocks of Polarised training with blocks of other training intensity distributions would be more or less beneficial than applying a Polarised training intensity distribution for the entirety of a training schedule.
A 2015 assessment of the research found that “Polarised Training Intensity Distribution has been proved to be a successful method for some elite athletes during certain periods of the season.” The review’s authors did not, however, conclude that polarised training was the best strategy after acknowledging the limitations of the prior research, saying instead that “further prospective randomised investigations conducted over extended time-periods will have to be designed to address this question.”
I’ve provided links to several studies at the bottom of this post if you want to look into the most recent research for yourself.
Periodisation
The best training intensity distribution may not necessarily be the best distribution; nonetheless, a substantial body of evidence from scientific research and practical application suggests that a mixed approach to training can be quite beneficial. This is why periodisation is crucial to the success of a training plan: by purposefully altering the distribution of your training intensity over the season, you may improve your chances of accomplishing your objectives.
As an illustration, when using a linear periodisation, lower intensity and higher volume are emphasised early on, and as goal events approach, the emphasis moves to higher intensity and noticeably less volume. With this strategy, you begin your season with training geared at improving your fitness and gradually turn your attention to avoiding tiredness and maintaining a particular level of fitness for your target event. The larger-picture periodisation of a training plan over the course of a season, a year, or possibly even longer timeframes must still be taken into account for training intensity distribution methodologies like Polarised training to be as effective as possible.
Who is is polarised training intended?
Athletes who want to test out a different method of dispersing intensity in their training programme should consider polarised training. While there isn’t a lot of consensus in the scientific literature regarding the exact athletes for whom Polarised might work best, consistency and motivation are clearly important components of successful training. The ideal training programme is ultimately the one that will keep you motivated and persistent, therefore if you are eager to attempt Polarised training, it might be a fantastic choice for you.
Further Reading
Does Polarisation training improve performance in running – Stephen Seiler
Stephen Seiler Podcast – The Physical Performance Show
Seiler, S. (2010). What is Best Practice for Training Intensity and Duration Distribution in Endurance Athletes? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 5(3), 276–291. doi:10.1123/ijspp.5.3.276
Seiler, S., Haugen, O., & Kuffel, E. (2007). Autonomic Recovery after Exercise in Trained Athletes. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39(8), 1366–1373. doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e318060f17d