. . .

Published ahead of Print

D
Polarized Training is Optimal for Endurance Athletes
Carl Foster1, Arturo Casado2, Jonathan Esteve-Lanao3, Thomas Haugen4, and Stephen Seiler5

TE
1
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI; 2Centre for Sport Studies, Rey Juan Carlos
University, SPAIN; 3All in Your Mind Training System, MEXICO; 4Kristiana University
College, NORWAY; 5University of Adger, NORWAY
EP
Accepted for Publication: 27 December 2021
C
C
A

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise® Published ahead of Print contains articles in unedited
manuscript form that have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. This manuscript will undergo
copyediting, page composition, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered that could affect the content.

Copyright © 2021 American College of Sports Medicine

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Publish Ahead of Print
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002871

Polarized Training is Optimal for Endurance Athletes

Carl Foster1, Arturo Casado2, Jonathan Esteve-Lanao3, Thomas Haugen4, and Stephen Seiler5

1
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI; 2Centre for Sport Studies, Rey Juan Carlos

D
University, SPAIN; 3All in Your Mind Training System, MEXICO; 4Kristiana University

College, NORWAY; 5University of Adger, NORWAY

TE
Address for Correspondence:

Carl Foster, Ph.D., FACSM, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of
EP
Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI, 54601; E-mail: cfosteruwl@gmail.com; phone: 608-792-

2170
C
C
A

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
INTRODUCTION

The training of endurance athletes has been and remains a central topic of study in exercise

physiology. The physiology of endurance athletes has been studied for many years (1). Their

performance is widely understood in terms of the model of Joyner and Coyle (2), which

integrates the sustained ability to produce ATP aerobically and convert muscular work to

power/speed. Beyond the well-documented favorable effect of doing a larger volume of training,

D
often exceeding 1000 hours per year in some elite athletes, there is clear evidence of a historical

trend toward more lower intensity training and of a dose-response relationship between the

TE
training load and subsequent performance (3-6). Expressed simply, successful athletes attempt to

optimize the adaptive effects (improved performance) while mitigating side-effects (fatigue,

injury, overreaching, overtraining syndrome) of their training regimes (7).

EP
Historical Context

High volume training has been important for at least 200 years, beginning with the era of

“pedestrian competitions”. A decades long debate persists regarding how other details of the
C

training program might interact with the volume of training to maximize performance (8,9).

Although numerous training “systems” have been described, within the last century, the
C

development of repetition training (A.V. Hill, and the “Flying Finns”) in the 1920’s, Fartlek
A

training, in Sweden (Gosta Holmer), and interval training, in Germany (Gershler and Reindell) in

the 1930’s, defined early approaches to training systemization. From the late 1940’s onwards, the

dominant training model was of larger and larger volumes of competition specific interval

training, often mimicking the training programs of champion athletes.

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Beginning about 1960, with the emergence of runners following Arthur Lydiard’s concept of

performing large volumes of relatively low intensity running during the preparatory period, there

has been growing interest in how the training intensity distribution (TID) might contribute to the

outcome of training. This was driven by a better understanding of physiological phenomena,

particularly the presence of two distinct lactate/ ventilatory thresholds (10,11). Indeed, during the

1970’s-1990’s, much interest was focused on the intensity zone between the two

D
lactate/ventilatory thresholds as a potential “sweet spot” for optimizing the volume-intensity

equation of training. That this intensity window (e.g. tempo training) approximated the range of

TE
competitive intensities in events such as 10-42 km running and 40-100 km cycling made it

attractive based on the principle of training specificity. It is still an important element in the

training “menu” of many athletes and is reportedly widely used by the highly successful runners
EP
from Kenya (6,12,13). However, continued individual successes with other approaches to

training suggest that large volumes of low intensity training may be a key part of a generalizable

approach to endurance training.

C

Around the turn of the 21st century, taking advantage of improved methods of monitoring
C

training, several observational reports emerged that elite endurance athletes, in a number of

sporting disciplines, were apparently self-selecting for a training intensity distribution (TID)
A

dominated by a high (70-90%) percentage of training below the lactate/ventilatory threshold

(Zone 1), a very low percentage (<10%) of training between the first and second

lactate/ventilatory thresholds (Zone 2), and a limited amount (10-20%) of training at intensities

in excess of the second lactate/ventilatory thresholds (Zone 3) (3,4,6,8,9,12-15). Regardless of

the specific details by different coaching groups, this organizational pattern can be understood in

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
terms of three intensity zones anchored by the two thresholds. Recognizing that the lactate and

ventilatory thresholds are not precisely the same, the general practice in the TID literature has

been to treat them as more or less equivalent, and with the second lactate/ventilatory threshold

seen as broadly equivalent to the maximal lactate steady state or critical power/speed. It appears

that athletes self-select for a large total percentage of low intensity (Zone 1) training, combined

with a smaller, but apparently obligatory, percentage of competition specific (or higher) intensity

D
training. Depending on how the intermediate intensity zones are computed, this pattern of

training has been referred to as polarized (~70-10-20%) or pyramidal (~70-20-10%). In athletic

TE
disciplines where orthopedic stress is low, and thus a very large total training volume is

performed (swimming, cycling, rowing), there seems to be selection for a particularly large

volume of training in Zone 1, although the relative percentages of the TID appear to be remain
EP
consistent. TID can be computed either on the basis of days with an intended training pattern

(e.g. interval vs tempo/ steady state vs high intensity intervals/repetitions) or as cumulative time

in various heart rate, lactate or RPE zones. There is conceptual matching, particularly for actual

muscular time and HR, but a less perfect matching for RPE (4, 16).
C
C

Observational Studies

Numerous studies, most since 2000, have documented that endurance athletes across disciplines
A

(cross-country skiing, rowing, cycling, running, speed skating and swimming) use either

polarized or pyramidal TID patterns, characterized by a high percentage (60-90%) of training in

Zone 1 (<LT), with lesser amounts of training in Zones 2 & 3. Fundamentally, the TID described

across divergent sports can be dichotomized into: 1) low intensity, low stress “background

training” including high volume days performed at low intensity, and 2) higher intensity, high

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
stress, race specific “deliberate practice” (6,13,17). Regardless of the details of the TID,

essentially all elite performers use at least some higher intensity training during the main

preparatory period, with an increasing volume of higher intensity training and decreasing total

volume during the race preparation/peaking period (8,9). While not controlled, these studies

represent the collective experience of coaches and athletes, who often develop training best

practices long before the scientific basis for best practices is understood.

D
Intervention Studies

TE
There have been at least five reasonably well-controlled studies of polarized/pyramidal vs

threshold centric training programs in well-trained, sub-elite, athletes (18-22). The percentage

change in performance-based measures is on the order of 45% greater (4.2 vs 2.9%) following 6-
EP
12 week preparatory training intervention periods in athletes randomized to polarized/pyramidal

vs threshold centric intervention training (Fig 1). One study (20) had the Zone 1 training volume

“clamped” at 93%, which hardly allows for differences in polarized vs threshold centric

programs to emerge, and unsurprisingly showed little difference in improved performance. This
C

is comparable to the very small negative performance results when training was “clamped” as
C

only high-volume training by Stoggl et al. (19). As such, it reinforces the concept that there is an

obligatory need for a regular “dose” of higher intensity training to promote improved
A

performance, although the advantages of a large volume of low intensity training over threshold

centric training remains evident.

Causal Hypotheses

Different hypotheses can be proposed for why more polarized/pyramidal training might promote

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
better results than threshold centric training. First, we know that there are two primary signaling

pathways for mitochondrial proliferation (both convergent on PGC1-α expression), one based on

calcium signaling (more likely with high-volume training) (1,23) and the other based on AMPK

signaling (more likely with high-intensity training) (24). The latter may preferentially drive

mitochondrial development in Type II motor units as well as increased capillary density (1).

Since unrecruited motor units are unlikely to demonstrate adaptive increases in mitochondrial

D
density, it follows that at least some regular higher intensity training is necessary for improved

aerobic metabolism in motor units needed during competitive intensity exercise. We also know

TE
that the relative amount of lower intensity training is somewhat less in middle-distance athletes

compared to long-distance athletes, potentially reflecting the realities of different patterns of

motor unit recruitment is events of different duration (9). What we need to know are the kinetics
EP
and saturation points of these two pathways. If more polarized training is optimal, then one

might suspect that the calcium signaling pathway has a much larger adaptive potential and,

conversely, that relatively small amounts of training relying on AMPK signaling are sufficient to

saturate the adaptive response (23, 24). Second, there is evidence that monotonic loads of high-
C

intensity training may cause homeostatic disturbances that are associated with inflammatory
C

responses (7) or slow autonomic recovery from training (25). This supports the concept that

failures to adapt to training (e.g. non-functional overreaching or overtraining syndrome) are

A

associated with dysfunction in the autonomic nervous system and/or with chronic inflammation

(7). This could reasonably contribute to reductions in maximal cardiac output, abnormalities in

the selective delivery blood flow or mitochondrial electron transport chain efficiency. Any of

these possibilities could reduce the capacity for aerobic ATP generation. This concept, of a

negative effect of too much higher intensity training, is supported by the quasi-experimental

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
observations of Billat et al. (26) and the report by Esteve-Lanao et al. (21) that runners could

only tolerate ~10% of Zone 3 training, measured by HR summation.

Summary

The potential advantages of a more polarized (including pyradimal) TID for endurance athletes,

particularly during the pre-competitive period, have emerged over decades, with evidence

D
favoring polarized TID more evident in the observational literature, and evidence favoring

pyramidal TID more evident in the experimental literature. This TID model proposes that the

TE
relative proportion of training effort should be organized relative to lactate/ventilatory thresholds

along the general plan that 70-80% of either training hours or sessions is conducted below the

intensity of the first lactate/ventilatory threshold. Abundant observational and interventional data
EP
support the concept that this TID has advantages over threshold centric training programs, with

the best designed of the intervention studies (18, 21) providing the strongest evidence. The

underlying physiological causes for this apparent advantage remain to be determined but may

relate to differences in both the pattern and magnitude intracellular adaptive signaling
C

(particularly that amplifying mitochondrial synthesis) and to prevention of autonomic

C

dysfunction and/or inflammatory responses associated with excessive higher intensity training.

The polarized/pyradimal TID may be particularly important for elite athletes, with high training
A

frequency/load and greater risk of training maladaptations (7). Less accomplished athletes, with

lower training frequency/load are less likely to experience negative effects from threshold centric

training, although our collective experience still supports the value of an approach to training

dominated by a TID favoring low intensity training.

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
RESPONSE TO BURNLEY, BEARDEN, AND JONES

First, we would congratulate Burnley et al. (27) for their contrasting perspective. Like us, they

found difficulty in discussing TID in terms of polarized and non-polarized as a unitary term.

There are simply too many other variables to consider about how training improves performance.

In particular, the concept of “survivorship bias” must be taken seriously. The history of analysis

of training in successful athletes is replete with the assumption that the training plan of current

D
champions is, in fact, the right plan, when it may simply be an example of trying to “build the

house around the furniture”. Additionally, they point out the difficulty of defining the TID by

TE
“session goal” vs “time in zone” as a strategy for evaluating the TID (16). Additionally, they

point out studies of the topic that have addressed the issue which we neglected in our primary

manuscript (28-35).
EP
There are several issues which we feel can help put the TID story into context. First,

training makes you better, and within limits more training creates a larger effect. However, there

clearly is a saturation curve to the training load vs improvement relationship (5, 36.37). Just as
C

there is evidence of highly individual responses to training from the Heritage Family Study (38)
C

and elsewhere (39,40) there likely is an upper limit to the training load vs improvement

relationship, that is likely highly individually specific. Certainly, there is evidence (41) that the
A

training load that is both tolerable and elicits improved performance progresses across an athletic

lifetime.

Seiler (41) originally described a “black hole” in the training load vs improvement

relationship. This appears to occur more often in less talented athletes, with less time to train,

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
who perform a relatively large volume of “low z2” training (e.g. threshold centric) to make up

for not being able to train as much as they need. This may lead to lack of improvement as neither

the calcium dependent nor the AMPK dependent pathways are likely to be stimulated strongly

enough to lead to mitochondrial biogenesis. The dissonance which emerged between the limited

improvement in performance by these serious recreational level athletes when Seiler and

Tønnessen (41) realized that high level athletes who were nominally “training harder” every

D
workout were, in fact, not training harder, but training more. At the heart of the over-generalized

term “polarized training”, the most consistent finding is the large relative volume of “low

TE
intensity” training performed by elite endurance athlete. This has been called “the 80%” by

practitioners. The best athletes do not train “hard” every day. This finding has also been

impressively consistent across sports.

EP
In that context, the composition of “the remaining 20%” is far less consistent. It does

appear that many elite athletes use training that has a distinctly polarized TID pattern. But, the

evidence is highly dependent on the level of the athlete and the event around which training is
C

focused. Everyone uses some mixture of higher intensity training, although whether truly
C

polarized z3>z2 or pyramidal z2>z3 may not be critical. In athletes preparing for longer events

much of the “high intensity” training (high stress response and marked shifts in internal/external
A

load ratio) is likely in Z2 (e.g. half marathon to marathon pace), whereas athletes preparing for

shorter events will do more training in Z3 (e.g. faster than 10 km pace, (~CS, LT2, VT2,

MLSS)). Similarly, the mixture may change from the basic “background” training to the “race

preparation” period of the training year.

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 The pattern of “hard days vs easy days” (the approach pioneered by Bill Bowerman from

the University of Oregon) may potentially be as important as the TID itself. Indeed, it may be,

after the total training load, the most important element of the training menu. It seems defensible

to suggest that training performed in z1, if not too prolonged, induces signals for mitochondrial

protein synthesis via the calcium signaling pathway without inducing significant autonomic

stress. Good athletes can accomplish an appreciable volume in z1 and still recover adequately

D
within the normal 24 diurnal cycle. Further, there is evidence that many athletes exceed both

intensity and volume recommendations on coach designated “easy days” (42). The presence of

TE
quantitative markers for the TID during days which are simply designed for maintenance or

“bridging” between key training sessions may be a commonsense approach to enforcing the need

for time to allow the adaptive response to occur. The potential benefit of clearly demarcated hard
EP
days vs easy days has support in the literature on overtraining syndrome in both animal (43) and

human (44) models, quantitatively expressed as training monotony (44). To our knowledge, there

has never been a controlled trial of the potential benefit of low monotony training on the adaptive

response to training. However, studies showing the benefit of distinct hard day vs easy day
C

training are available (45, 46). Within this context it is probably necessary to recognize that a
C

>2hr run or 4-hr ride in z1 may be as stressful as an interval (z2 or z3) session. Thus, the

“argument” over TID and polarized vs pyramidal vs threshold centric may, instead, be an
A

optimization question involving the timing and distribution of the stress load within the typical

training micro cycle across different training phases in the season.

A very recent report (47), using an elegant experimental design, good statistical power,

both physiologic and performance outcomes, and an adequate intervention duration has

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
demonstrated the potential superiority of polarized training over pyramidal training both as a

single intervention and as a sequentially linked follow-on intervention in very well-trained sub-

elite runners. This study provides the best evidence to date, although the performance outcome (5

km running time trail) is in the intensity range best addressed by polarized (e.g. z3) training. On

the basis of motor unit recruitment specificity, it may well be that in longer events (>10 km

running or >30 min duration) where the competitive intensity is lower, that a more pyramidal

D
(e.g. more z2) TID may be superior.

TE
Concluding Statement

Athletes clearly benefit from performing both a high volume of low intensity training and more

measured volumes of high intensity training. It may be that the TID has a unique specific effect
EP
on the benefit for training programs for endurance athletes. The concept of polarized training

(z1>z2<z3) has become popular, although it’s near cousin, pyramidal training (z1>z2>z3) may

be as effective. The relative merits of these two variations of training plans that are dominated by

a large volume of relatively low intensity (hence non-specific) training may depend on the
C

specific event for which the training plan is designed. It may also reasonably be hypothesized
C

that the large volume of low intensity training common to these variations in TID may reflect the

need to have low monotony in the training plan. However, rather than the term “recovery days”,
A

perhaps a better term would be “training preparation days” as it may be necessary to have some

recovery to allow for the large magnitude of homeostatic disturbances on “hard” training days, to

mitigate orthopedic stress and to prevent autonomic dysfunction. The best recent evidence, in

athletes training for 5 km running races, suggests the benefit of a polarized over a pyramidal

TID, although these findings may reflect event specificity.

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Acknowledgements

No funding was received for this work and the authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
REFERENCES

1. Van der Zaaard S, Brocherie F, Jaspers RT. Under the hood: Skeletal muscle

determinants of endurance performance. Frontiers. 2021;7:19434.

2. Joyner M, Coyle EF. Endurance performances: the physiology of champions. J Physiol.

2008;586(1):35-44.

D
3. Fiskestrand A, Seiler KS. Training and performance characteristics among Norwegian

international rowers 1970-2001. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2004;14(5):303-10.

TE
4. Seiler KS, Kjerland GO. Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance

athletes: is there evidence for an optimal distribution. Scand J Med Sci Sports.

2006;16(1):49-55.
EP
5. Foster C, Daines E, Hector L, Snyder AC, Welsh R: Athletic performance in relation to

training load. Wisc Med J. 1996;95(6):370-74.

6. Casado A, Hanley B, Santos-Concejero J, Ruiz-Perez L. World-class long-distance

running performances are best predicted by volume of easy runs and deliberate practice
C

of short-interval and tempo runs. J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35(9):2525-31.

C

7. Meeusen R, Duclos M, Foster C, Fry A, Gleeson M, Nieman, Raglin J, Rietjens G,

Steinacker J, Urhausen A. Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the overtraining

A

syndrome: joint consensus statement of the European College of Sport Science and the

American College of Sports Medicine. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(1):186-205.

8. Seiler S. What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution duration in

endurance athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perf., 2010;5(3):276-91.

9. Haugen T, Sandbakk O, Enoksen E, Seiler S, Tønneson E. Crossing the golden training

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 divide: The science and practice of training world class 800- and 1500-m runners. Sports

Med. 2021;51(9):1835-54.

10. Hollmann W, Rost R, Liesen H, Dufaux B, Heck H, Mader A. Assessment of different

forms of physical activity with respect to preventive and rehabilitative cardiology. Int J

Sports Med. 1981;2:67-80.

11. Sjodin B, Jacobs I, Svedenhag J. Changes in onset of blood lactate accumulation (OBLA)

D
and muscle enzymes after training at OBLA. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1982;49(1):45-57.

12. Billat VL, Demarle A, Slawinski J, Paiva M, Koralsztein JP. Physical and training

TE
characteristics of top-class marathon runners. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(12):2089-

97.

13. Casado A, Hanley B, Ruiz-Perez LM. Deliberate practice in training differentiates the
EP
best Kenyan and Spanish long-distance runners. Eur J Sports Sci. 2020;20(7):887-95.

14. Steinacker JM, Lormes W, Lehmann M, Altenburg D. Training of rowers before world

championships. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(7):1158-63.

15. Orie J, Hofman N, de Koning JJ, Foster C. Thirty-eight years of training distribution in
C

Olympic speed skaters. Int J Sports Physiol Perf. 2014;9(1):93-9.

C

16. Bellinger P, Arnold B, Minahan C. Quantifying the training intensity distribution in

middle distance runners: Influence of different methods of training intensity

A

quantification. Int J Sports Physiol Perf. 2020;15(3):319-23.

17. Esteve-Lanao J, San Juan A, Earnest CP, Foster C, Lucia A. How do endurance runners

actually train? Relationship with competitive performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc.

2005;37(3):486-504.

18. Neal CM, Hunter AM, Brennan L, O’Sullivan A, Hamilton DL, DeVito G, Galloway

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 SDR. Six weeks of a polarized training-intensity distribution leads to greater

physiological and performance adaptations than a threshold model in trained cyclists.

J Appl Physiol (1985). 2013;114(4):461-71.

19. Stöggl T, Sperlich B. Polarized training has greater impact on key endurance variables

than threshold, high intensity, or high volume training. Front Physiol. 2014;5:33.

20. Treff G, Winkert K, Sarebau M, Steinacker JM, Sperlich B. Eleven-week preparation

D
involving polarized intensity distribution is not superior to pyramidal distribution in

national elite rowers. Front Physiol. 2017:8:515.

TE
21. Esteve-Lanao J, Foster C, Seiler S, Lucia A. Impact of training intensity distribution on

performance in endurance athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(3):943-47.

22. Pla R, Le Meur Y, Aubry A, Toussaint J-F, Hellard P. Effects of a 6-week period of
EP
polarized or threshold training on performance and fatigue in elite swimmers. Int J Sports

Physiol Perf. 2019:14(2):183-89.

23. Bishop D, Botella J, Grantha C. CrossTalk opposing view: exercise training volume is

more important than training intensity to promote increases in mitochondrial content. J

C

Physiol. 2019;597(16):4115-18.
C

24. MacInnis MJ, Skelly LE, Gibala MJ. CrossTalk proposal: exercise training intensity is

more important than volume to promote increases in human skeletal muscle

A

mitochondrial content. J Physiol. 2019;597(16):4111-13.

25. Seiler S, Haugen O, Kuffel E. Autonomic recovery after exercise in trained athletes:

intensity and duration effects. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(8):1366-73.

26. Billat VL, Flechet B, Petit B, Muriaux G, Koralsztein JP. Interval training at VO2max:

Effect on performance and overtraining markers. Med Sci Sports Exerc.1999;31(1):152-

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 63.

27. Burnley M, Bearden SE, Jones AE. Polarized training is not optimal for endurance

athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (In Press).

28. Festa L, Tarperi C, Skroce K, La Torre A, Schena F. Effects of different training intensity

distribution in recreational runners. Front Sports Act Living 2020;1:70-7.

29. Tonnesen E, Sylta O, Haugen T, Eemi E, Svendsen IS, Seiler S. The road to gold:

D
Traning and peaking characteristics in the year prior to gold medal endurance

performance. PLoS One July 14, 2014, doi: 10.1371/journal pone.010796.

TE
30. Solli GS, Tønnessen E, Sandbakk Ø. The training characteristics of the world’s most

successful female cross-country skier. Front Physiol. 2017;8:1069.

31. Kenneally M, Casado A, Gomez-Ezeiza J, Santon-Concejero J. Training intensity

EP
distribution analysis by race pace vs physiological approach to world-class middle and

long-distance runners. Eur J Sport Sci. 2021;21(6):819-26.

32. Perez A, Ramos-Campo DJ, Freital TT, Rubio-Arias JA, Marin-Cascales E, Alcaraz PE.

Effect of two different intensity distribution training programs on aerobic and body
C

composition variables in ultra-endurance runners. Eur J Sport Sci. 2019;19(5):636-44.

C

33. Rohrken G, Held S, Donath L. Six weeks of polarized versus moderate intensity

distribution: A pilot intervention study. Front Physiol. 2020;11:534688.

A

34. Munoz I, Seiler S, Bautista J, Espana J, Larumbe E, Esteve-Lanao J. Does polarized

training improve performance in recreational runners? Int J Sports Physiol Perf.

2014;9(2):265-72.

35. Tjelta L. Three Norwegian brothers all European 1500m champions: What is the secret?

Int J Sports Sci Coaching. 2019;14(5):694-700.

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 36. Hagan RD, Smith MG, Gettman LR. Marathon performance in relation to maximal

aerobic power and training indices. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1981;13(3):185-89.

37. Foster C, Porcari JP, de Koning JJ, Bannwarth E, Casolino E, Condello G, Galamback K,

Gibson M, Lueck J, Rodriguez-Marroyo JA, Walraven L. Exercise training for

performance and health. Dtsch Z Sportsmed. 2012;63:69-74.

38. Bouchard C, An P, Rice T, Skinner JS, Wilmore JH, Gagnon J, Perusse L, Leon AS, Rao

D
DC. Familial aggregation of VO2max response to exercise training: results from the

HERITAGE Family Study. J Appl Physiol. 1998;87(3):1003-8.

TE
39. Tucker R, Collins M. What makes champions? A review of the relative contribution of

training and genes to sporting success. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(8):555-61.

40. Hecksteden A, Kraushaar J, Scharhag-Rostenberger F, Theisein D, Senn S, Meyer T.

EP
Individual responses to exercise training-a statistical perspective. J Appl Physiol (1985).

2015;118(12):1450-59.

41. Seiler S, Tønnessen E. Intervals, thresholds and long slow distance: the role of intensity

and duration in endurance training. Sportscience. 2009;13:32-53.

C

42. Foster C, Heimann K, Esten PL, Brice G, Porcari JP. Differences in perceptions of
C

training by coaches and athletes. S Afri J Sports Med. 2001;8:3-7.

43. Bruin G, Kuipers H, Keizer HA, Vandervuisse GJ. Adaptation and overtraining in horses
A

subjected to increasing training loads. J Appl Physiol. 1994;76(5):1908-13.

44. Foster C. Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining syndrome. Med

Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(7):1164-68.

45. Hansen AK Fischer CP, Plomgaard P, Andersen JP, Saltin B, Pedersen BK. Skeletal

muscle adaptation: training twice every second day vs training once daily. J Appl Physiol

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 (1985). 2005;98(1):93-9.

46. Yeo WK, Paton CD, Gavenheim AP, Burke LM, Carey AL, Hawley JA. Skeletal muscle

adaptation and performance responses to once a day versus twice every second day

endurance training programs. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2008;105(5):1462-70.

47. Filipas L, Bonato M, Gallo G, Codella R. Effects of 16 weeks of pyramidal and polarized

training intensity distributions in well-trained endurance runners. Scand J Med Sci Sports.

D
2021: doi:10.1111/SMS.14101

TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
FIGURE LEGEND

Figure 1. Percent improvement in either performance or peak physiologic responses in 5

controlled studies (18-22) of polarized/pyramidal training (solid bars) (>70% Zone 1 (solid bars))

vs threshold centric training (hatched bars) (~50% Zone 2(hatched bars) and in Zone 3 (grey

bars) in sub elite runners, cyclists, rowers or swimmers. In all 5 studies the improvement over a

D
6-12 week training intervention was ~45 greater (~4.2 vs 2.4 %) in the polarized training groups.

In the 3th study (20), Zone 1 training was “clamped” at 93% of training, which is a distinctly

TE
different TID than usually evaluated for polarized/pyramidal (~70-10-20%) vs threshold centric

(~40-50-10%) training programs. In this group, the magnitude of improvement across the

intervention period was remarkably low, supporting the concept that there is an obligatory need
EP
for some higher intensity training. In the 5th study (22), the magnitude of improvement across the

intervention period (cross over design) was remarkably small because the athletes were already

very highly trained.

C
C
A

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Figure 1

D
TE
EP
C
C
A

Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.