Is Polarized Training The Best?

In today’s journal club, we’re digging into the topic of “Polarized Training” by examining two new opinion papers that take opposing sides on whether Polarized training is an optimal strategy for endurance athletes. Let’s jump in.

On the left we have Burnley et al. with “Polarized Training is Not Optimal for Endurance Athletes.
On the right we have Foster et al. with “Polarized Training is Optimal for Endurance Athletes”.

We’ll start by defining a few terms relevant to the polarized training debate. 

What it Is

“Polarized training” loosely defines a strategy in which roughly 80% of training is performed at an “easy” intensity, with around 20% at a “hard” intensity  [1].

This “easy/hard” dichotomy is further broken down into three primary training zones. 

Polarized Training Zones

To polish off our description of polarized training, we’re left with a cycling approach where approximately 70% of time is spent below RPE 4, 10% between RPE 5 and 7, and 20% of time over RPE 8 [2].

Being surgically precise with our Training Intensity Distribution (TID) isn’t the point (nor is it even possible) of a polarized approach. 

More broadly, polarized advocates recommend that you should spend most of your time riding at a low intensity, avoid getting stuck doing lots of work around tempo and threshold, and instead spend your most focused energy on the highest intensities at VO2max and above. 

A Close Cousin

Sharing much of the same DNA, the other training strategy discussed in these two papers is the “pyramidal approach”.

As its name implies, pyramidal training brings greater balance to training time, with more time being spent in the “moderate” zone between RPE 5 and 7.

When we look at the TID of the pyramidal approach we get about 70% of time spent below RPE 4, 20% of time between RPE 5 and 7, and 10% of time over RPE 8 [2].

So why are distinctions between polarized and pyramidal training worthy of discussion? Any time someone makes a claim of an “optimal” training strategy, debate is certain to follow.

Let’s start with the first paper, aptly titled “Polarized Training is Not Optimal for Endurance Athletes” [3].

Polarized is not optimal

Our first paper takes the position that a polarized approach is not an optimal way to train based on these general points [3]. 

Our second opinion paper takes the position that “Polarized Training is Optimal for Endurance Athletes” [2]. Let’s jump into the primary points made by Foster and colleagues. 

Polarized is optimal

So how might you take the differing perspectives found in these two papers and apply them to your own training? Here are four suggestions.

1. Consistency > “Optimal” TID

Training intensity distribution (TID) matters less than riding consistently. In simple terms, start by following the cycling “path of most enjoyment”.

What type of training intensity do you most enjoy. If you hate riding hard, then what type of intensity/intervals do you find the least terrible?

Your enjoyment/tolerance to higher intensity training is more important than any set of “optimal” intervals executed by a world class cyclist. Chose the TID you most enjoy, then observe your results.

2. Allow your event demands to define your “high” (zone 3) intensity

Both papers make note of the value of specificity when deciding how to distribute the roughly 20% of high intensity riding in a good training plan.

If you’re doing a bunch of track, criterium, CX, or short MTB, a more polarized approach might make the most sense as a starting point for training.

If you’re doing TT’s or longer road/gravel/MTB events start with a more pyramidal approach to your higher intensity riding.

The primary point is that “optimal” training will be a product of the specific athlete during specific event demands.

3. More hours might be a requirement

At some point, spending more time in the saddle will be a requirement to continue to improve on the bike.

One point of agreement between both papers, is that the best cyclists in the world spend a ton of time riding at low intensities.

If you’ve already experimented with more threshold intensity (pyramidal), or more VO2max+ intensity (polarized), expanding your ride time at low intensity may be the only path forward to continue to improve on the bike.

If you’re crunched for time and are unable to add more lower intensity riding, try allocating more training energy to strength training, optimizing your body composition, or improving your fueling on the bike.

4. Evaluate trends in progress.

Once you’ve settled into a training strategy geared toward consistency, get in the habit of evaluating big picture trends in your progress.

The most “important” cycling metrics to track will be the ones most relevant to your favorite event.

If you’re getting ready for your first fondo, keep track of your average power output over increasingly lower rides.

If you’re primarily a criterium racer keep tabs on increases to your FTP.

If you’re most interested in road races take note of your power bests after 2 or 3k kJ’s.

The larger goal is to use an objective measure to evaluate the effectiveness of whatever style of training you’re attempting. Continuing on the same path, making small tweaks, or trying something different entirely (swapping from a polarized to pyramidal approach or vice versa)

References

1. Neal, C.M., et al., 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): p. 461-71.
2. Foster, C., et al., Polarized Training is Optimal for Endurance Athletes. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2022. Publish Ahead of Print.
3. Burnley, M., S.E. Bearden, and A.M. Jones, Polarized Training is Not Optimal for Endurance Athletes.Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2022. Publish Ahead of Print.