Six Weeks of Polarized Versus Moderate Intensity Distribution: A Pilot Intervention Study

Röhrken, Golo; Held, Steffen; Donath, Lars

doi:10.3389/fphys.2020.534688

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(65 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To our knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate that adherence to a polarized training program produces superior outcomes compared with the pyramidal training programs athletes typically practice (4,5,17,18) or, indeed, other possible training models (19)(20)(21). There is evidence that threshold training is highly effective in promoting beneficial physiological adaptations (22,23).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Polarized Training Is Not Optimal for Endurance Athletes

Bearden

Jones

2022

Medicine &Amp; Science in Sports &Amp; Exercise

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Polarized Training Is Not Optimal for Endurance Athletes

Bearden

Jones

2022

Medicine &Amp; Science in Sports &Amp; Exercise

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It consists of a TID of 75-80% of the total time of the training program in low-intensity zones (<VT1), and 0-20% in the high-intensity zone (>VT2), with little time (0-5 %) in the moderate area (between VT1 and VT2) [3,[8][9][10][11].…”

Section: Polarized Training Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This TID is developed in zone one, with a percentage of the training time of 100% or very close to it [3,8,14]. These TID models have been studied in different sports such as athletics [6,7,9,[14][15][16][17][18][19], triathlon [10,14,20,21], cross-country skiing [14], speed skating [22], and swimming [23]. These studies have been conducted in order to quantify the optimal internal and external loads, as well as methods to improve performance [24].…”

Section: High Volume Low-intensity Training Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Training intensity distribution on running time in amateur endurance runners: a scoping review

Gonzalez

Serna

2022

Rev. Investig. Innov. Cienc. Salud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Problem: Intensity in endurance training is important for improving race time; its optimal handling in amateur runners has not been extensively studied. The polarized training intensity distribution (TID) model emerges as a possibility to reduce race time; however, effect of this model remains to be demonstrated compared to other TID models. Objective: The objective of this study is to explore the current state of the evidence its the gaps, according to the effect of the polarized TID model on race time in amateur runners compared to other TID models. Method: A scoping review without date restrictions was carried out in PubMed, EBSCO, SciELO, LILACS, and Google Scholar. Randomized controlled studies, quasi-experimental studies, and case studies, which comprise polarized TID model in amateur runners on race time, were include. Results: Five studies evaluated the effect on running time using the polarized TID model compared to other models in amateur runners; four of them did not show differences between groups in the race times in two, five, and ten km. Only one study showed a significant difference in the race time at 21 km. Conclusions: The model with polarized TID did not show significant differences in race time compared to other models, except for a case report in which the polarized TID was higher by 21 km compared to the threshold TID: 1 hour. 20 min. 22 seconds and 1 hour. 26 min. 34s, respectively. The scarce evidence found, the heterogeneity in the distances in the evaluated race time, the distribution of zones in the same TID, the duration of the interventions, and the monitoring of the loads, are the main limitations found in the studies. The polarized TID could contribute to adherence, lower perception of effort, and injury prevention. However, this must be tested in future studies.

show abstract

“…The volume of low-intensity training sessions is approximately 80% of the total training volume, while high-intensity training is approximately 20% of the total training volume [ 28 ]. In polarized training programs, moderate-intensity training at the level of the second ventilatory threshold (VT2) is not used [ 25 , 29 , 30 ], or these training sessions account for a small part of the training load (up to 5% of the total training volume) [ 31 ]. In the studies by Hebisz et al [ 29 , 30 ], a polarized training program was defined as training including sprint interval training (SIT), high-intensity interval training (HIIT), and low-intensity endurance training (LIT), with the exclusion of training at an intensity of VT2.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute Effects of Sprint Interval Training and Chronic Effects of Polarized Training (Sprint Interval Training, High Intensity Interval Training, and Endurance Training) on Choice Reaction Time in Mountain Bike Cyclists

Hebisz

Cortis

Hebisz

2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the acute effects of sprint interval training and chronic effects of polarized training on choice reaction time in cyclists. Twenty-six mountain bike cyclists participated in the study and were divided into experimental (E) and control (C) groups. The cyclists trained for 9-weeks and performed five training sessions each week. Types of training sessions: (1) sprint interval training (SIT) which consisted of 8–16, 30 s repetitions at maximal intensity, (2) high-intensity interval training (HIIT) included 5 to 7, 5-min efforts at an intensity of 85–95% maximal aerobic power (Pmax), and (3) endurance training (ET) performed at an intensity of 55–60% Pmax, lasting 120–-180 min. In each week the cyclists performed: in group E a polarized training program, which included 2 × SIT, 1 × HIIT and 2 × ET, while in group C 2 × HIIT and 3 × ET. Before (acute effects) and after the 9-week training period (chronic effects) participants performed laboratory sprint interval testing protocol (SITP), which consisted of 12 maximal repetitions lasting 30 s. During SITP maximal and mean anaerobic power, as well as lactate ion concentration and blood pH were measured. Choice reaction time (RT) was measured 4-times: before and immediately after the SITP test—before and after the 9-week training period. Evaluated the average choice RT, minimal choice RT (shortest reaction), maximal choice RT (longest reaction), and the number of incorrect reactions. Before the training period as acute effects of SITP, it was observed: a shorter average choice RT (F = 13.61; p = 0.001; η2 = 0.362) and maximal choice RT (F = 4.71; p = 0.040; η2 = 0.164), and a decrease the number of incorrect reactions (F = 53.72; p = 0.000; η2 = 0.691), for E and C groups. After the 9-week training period, chronic effects showed that choice RT did not change in any of the cyclists' groups. Only in the E group after the polarized training period, the number of incorrect reactions decreased (F = 49.03; p = 0.000; η2 = 0.671), average anaerobic power increased (F = 8.70; p = 0.007; η2 = 0.274) and blood pH decreased (F = 27.20; p = 0.000; η2 = 0.531), compared to the value before the training period. In conclusion, a shorter choice RT and a decrease in the number of incorrect reactions as acute effects of SITP, and a decrease in the number of incorrect reactions and higher average power as chronic effects of the polarized training program are beneficial for mountain bike cyclists.

show abstract

Six Weeks of Polarized Versus Moderate Intensity Distribution: A Pilot Intervention Study

Cited by 12 publications

References 43 publications

Polarized Training Is Not Optimal for Endurance Athletes

Polarized Training Is Not Optimal for Endurance Athletes

Training intensity distribution on running time in amateur endurance runners: a scoping review

Acute Effects of Sprint Interval Training and Chronic Effects of Polarized Training (Sprint Interval Training, High Intensity Interval Training, and Endurance Training) on Choice Reaction Time in Mountain Bike Cyclists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About