effects_of_polarized_training_vs__other_trainning.636

Brief Review
Effects of Polarized Training vs. Other Training

Intensity Distribution Models on Physiological
Variables and Endurance Performance in
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
Different-Level Endurance Athletes: A

Scoping Review
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 12/25/2024
Tomás Rivera-Köfler,1 Adrián Varela-Sanz,1 Alexis Padrón-Cabo,2 Manuel A. Giráldez-Garcı́a,1 and

Iker Muñoz-Pérez3
1
Performance and Health Group, Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences and Physical Education,
University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain; 2Department of Special Didactics, Faculty of Education and Sport Sciences, University of Vigo,
Pontevedra, Spain; and 3Department of Physical Activity and Sports, Faculty of Education and Sports, University of Deusto, Bilbao,
Spain
Abstract
Rivera-Köfler, T, Varela-Sanz, A, Padrón-Cabo, A, Giráldez-Garcı́a, MA, and Muñoz-Pérez, I. Effects of polarized training vs. other
training intensity distribution models on physiological variables and endurance performance in different-level endurance athletes:
a scoping review. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000–000, 2024—This scoping review aimed to analyze the long-term effects of
polarized training (POL) on key endurance physiological- and performance-related variables and to systematically compare them
with other training intensity distribution (TID) models in endurance athletes of different performance levels. Four TID models were
analyzed: POL, pyramidal (PYR), threshold (THR), and block (BT) training models. The literature search was performed using
PubMed, SportDiscus, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Studies were selected if they met the following criteria: compared
POL with any other TID model, included healthy endurance athletes, men, and/or women; reported enough information regarding
the volume distribution in the different training intensity zones (i.e., zone 1, zone 2, and zone 3), assessed physiological
(i.e., maximum/peak oxygen uptake, speed or power at aerobic and anaerobic thresholds, economy of movement), and perfor-
mance in competition or time-trial variables. Of the 620 studies identified, 15 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this
review. According to scientific evidence, POL and PYR models reported greater maximum oxygen uptake enhancements. Both
POL and PYR models improved the speed or power associated with the aerobic threshold. By contrast, all TID models effectively
improved the speed or power associated with the anaerobic threshold. Further research is needed to establish the effects of TID
models on the economy of movement. All TID models were effective in enhancing competitive endurance performance, but testing
protocols were quite heterogeneous. The POL and PYR models seem to be more effective in elite and world-class athletes, whereas
there were no differences between TID models in lower-level athletes.
Key Words: long-distance athletes, polarization, physiological adaptations, competition performance, training load
Introduction [LT2], respectively) thresholds. In this regard, the gold standard

for determining both aerobic and anaerobic thresholds is the gas
Exercise intensity and its distribution over time have a key role in
exchange analysis, which allows to establish VT1 and VT2, re-
endurance training programming for sports success in sport-
spectively (51,67). Furthermore, aerobic and anaerobic thresh-
specific endurance disciplines (11,74,75). The training intensity
distribution (TID) represents the percentage of volume (i.e., time olds can also be estimated by measuring blood lactate
or distance) an athlete spends training at low, moderate, or high concentration, the so-called LT1 and LT2, respectively (51,67).
intensity. In this sense, 3 training zones based on the triphasic Thus, zone 1 (Z1) is defined as low-intensity training (LIT) and
model traditionally proposed by Skinner and McLellan (69) are represents the intensity below the aerobic threshold, also called
often identified to quantify TID in endurance sports. This model is moderate exercise domain; zone 2 (Z2) is often named moderate-
characterized by determining the training zones according to the 2 intensity training and represents the intensity between the aerobic
physiological milestones, the aerobic and anaerobic thresholds, and anaerobic thresholds, also called heavy exercise domain; zone
assessing both ventilatory (i.e., first ventilatory threshold [VT1] 3 (Z3) is usually defined as the high-intensity training (HIT) and
and second ventilatory threshold [VT2], respectively) or lactate represents the intensity above the anaerobic threshold, also called
(i.e., first lactate threshold [LT1] and second lactate threshold severe exercise domain (64–67,74,75). More recently, a 5-zone
model has been proposed as an effective method for establishing
Address correspondence to Dr. Adrián Varela-Sanz, adrian.varela.sanz@udc.es. the main training zones in endurance sports, including easy
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 00(00)/1–13 (i.e., Z1), moderate (i.e., Z2), threshold (i.e., Z3), interval
ª 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association (i.e., zone 4), and maximal intensity (i.e., zone 5) training efforts
Copyright © 2024 National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
TID Models in Endurance Athletes (2024) 00:00
(66). However, the great majority of studies performed with accumulating ;75–80% of training volume in Z1, ;5% in Z2,
different-level endurance athletes report TID according to the and ;15–20% in Z3 (i.e., Z1 . Z3 . Z2) (74,77). Another
traditional triphasic model. Figure 1 represents the relationship model of TID is the so-called threshold training or lactate
between the triphasic and the 5-zone model and the associated threshold model (THR), which is characterized by emphasizing
main physiological and performance variables. the accumulation of training volume in Z2, spending ;45–50%
On the other hand, the training volume (i.e., time or distance) of training volume in Z1, ;45–50% in Z2, and ;5–10% in Z3
accumulated in each zone produces different physiological (i.e., Z1 $ Z2 . Z3) (47,74). Finally, the pyramidal training
adaptations in the short and long term. Concretely, training in Z1 model (PYR) is distinguished by accumulating the highest per-
is associated with peripheral adaptations (67), such as a pro- centage of training volume in Z1 (i.e., ;70%) and correlatively
liferation in the number of mitochondria (64) and increased decreasing in Z2 and Z3 (i.e., ;20% and ;10%, respectively)
capillarization of type I fibers (9), among others. Training in Z2 (20,74,77). In addition, some studies (33,71,74) present other
leads to an improvement in glucose utilization through the oxi- TID approaches characterized by the use of specific intensities,
dative pathway, lactate oxidation, and increased activity of per- such as LIT and HIT, usually organized in training blocks
oxisome proliferator-activated receptor-g coactivator (PGC1a) (BT) (45).
through a higher rate of adenosine monophosphate-activated Previous research has consistently demonstrated that TID
protein kinase activity (27), thereby increasing mitochondrial models produce different effects in the short- and long-term on
biogenesis. Training accumulated in Z3 elicits enhanced maxi- key endurance performance-related variables. These variables
mum oxygen uptake (V_ O2max) (30,67), improved mitochondrial are: V_ O2max; the energy cost of the sport-specific movement
respiration function (6,27), and an increase in the proportion of pattern, which is a complex influenced by different underpinning
type II muscle fibers (14), among others. However, it is important factors (i.e., cardiorespiratory, biomechanical, neuromuscular);
to consider that the lines delimiting different training intensity and the ability to maintain a submaximal exercise intensity
zones are dynamic, and the overlap of these training zones during (i.e., high % of V_ O2max) related to the critical power/speed, that is
a single training session may lead to similar physiological adap- near to the anaerobic threshold (1,3,11,25,36,37,46,53,73). In
tations (6,9,14,27,30,67). fact, the interaction of these variables determines athletes’ en-
The latest scientific evidence established 3 main TID models in durance sport-specific performance (i.e., time-trial [TT] and
endurance sports training (11,75,77). In this regard, the polarized competition performance) (29,36,38). In this sense, a recent sys-
training model (POL) is traditionally characterized by tematic review and meta-analysis has determined that POL leads
Figure 1. Training intensity zones and associated physiological and performance variables in endurance sports according to the
traditional triphasic model and a 5-zone model. The classification of intensity zones was based on the traditional triphasic model
proposed by Skinner and McLellan (1980), which distinguishes between moderate, heavy, and severe exercise domains
(i.e., Z1, Z2, and Z3, respectively). The 5-zone model is typically used to delimit training zones in endurance sports. This figure
relates both models and simplifies different concepts to facilitate the reader’s comprehension. Note that training zones in the
triphasic model are referred to as Z (capital letter), while training zones of the 5-zone model are presented as z (lowercase letter).
Z1 5 training intensity zone 1 in the triphasic model; Z2 5 training intensity zone 2 in the triphasic model; Z3 5 training intensity
Z3 in the triphasic model; z0 5 training intensity zone 0 in the 5-zone model; z1 5 training intensity zone 1 in the 5-zone model;
z2 5 training intensity zone 2 in the 5-zone model; z3 5 training intensity Z3 in the 5-zone model; z4 5 training intensity zone 4 in
the 5-zone model; z5 5 training intensity zone 5 in the 5-zone model; VT1 5 first ventilatory threshold; OPLA 5 onset of plasma
lactate accumulation; LT1 5 first lactate threshold; VT2, second ventilatory threshold; OBLA 5 onset of blood lactate accu-
mulation; IAT 5 individual anaerobic threshold; MLSS 5 maximal lactate steady-state; LT2 5 second lactate threshold;
V_ O2max 5 maximum oxygen uptake; HRmax 5 maximal heart rate; MAS/MAP 5 maximal aerobic speed/maximal aerobic
power; vVO2max 5 velocity associated with the maximum oxygen consumption; CP/CS 5 critical power/speed; FTP 5
functional threshold power; RPE 5 rating of perceived exertion in the Borg 6–20 scale.
TID Models in Endurance Athletes (2024) 00:00 | www.nsca.com
to greater long-term adaptations than other TID models (59). In Population. Studies with healthy men and/or women endurance
addition, Kenneally et al. (41) examined the effectiveness of dif- athletes of different levels were classified based on McKay et al.
ferent TID models in running performance, showing that both (44) Classification Framework as follows: tier 0: sedentary; tier 1:
POL and PYR models improved performance in distance runners recreationally active; tier 2: trained/developmental; tier 3: highly
compared with other TID models. In this line, Casado et al. (12) trained/national level; tier 4: elite/international level; or tier 5:
established that elite runners who usually follow a PYR model world class.
accumulate the great majority of training volume in Z1
(⁓76–86%). These authors concluded that the PYR model is the Intervention. All articles included implemented at least 1 in-
most effective TID model to improve performance and develop tervention with the POL model and reported enough information
key endurance performance-related variables. Similarly, previous to establish training load volume distribution in the different
studies carried out by Muñoz et al. (46) and Esteve-Lanao et al. training intensity zones (i.e., Z1, Z2, and Z3). The PI was cal-
(18) had already shown a positive correlation between training culated to categorize different TID models in nonpolarized and
time spent in Z1 and endurance performance. Therefore, it seems polarized TID, fixing a cut-off .2.00 a.u. to be considered as
that POL and PYR models reported greater improvements in a polarized TID model. In addition, a higher PI coefficient indi-
endurance performance. However, there is a lack of consensus in cates a more polarized TID model. In the case that Z3 5 0, PI is
scientific evidence concerning the effectiveness of the most ap- zero by definition; and if Z3 . Z1, the PI cannot be
propriate TID model to optimize endurance performance, espe- calculated (77).
cially when reported training volume in each training zone and
athletes’ performance levels are considered (10,23). In this regard, Comparison. Studies that compared POL model intervention
McKay et al. (44) have recently established a 6-tiered Participant with other TID models were selected for this review.
Classification Framework considering training volume and per-
formance variables. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first Outcomes. The outcomes selected were physiological (V_ O2max/
scoping review providing the polarization index (PI) developed by V_ O2peak, speed or power at aerobic and anaerobic thresholds,
Treff et al. (77) for categorizing the TID models implemented in economy of movement) and performance in competition or TT
experimental research designs, as well as a classification frame- variables.
work for establishing athletes’ level according to McKay et al.
(i.e., tier 1) (44). Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to Exclusion Criteria. Studies involving nonendurance athletes or
analyze the long-term effects of POL on key endurance physio- individuals with pathologies or injuries, intervention
logical- and performance-related variables in different-level en- periods ,4 weeks, and studies that did not report enough in-
durance athletes and to systematically compare these effects with formation to determine training load volume distribution in the
other TID models (i.e., PYR, THR, BT). Based on previous sci- different training intensity zones (i.e., Z1, Z2, and Z3) on the
entific evidence (20,59), we hypothesize that POL and PYR selected variables were excluded. In addition, letters to the editor,
training models will lead to greater enhancements in highly systematic reviews and meta-analyses, abstracts, opinion articles,
trained/national level, elite/international level, and world-class or conference papers were also excluded.
endurance athletes (i.e., tiers 3–5), while other TID models (e.g.,
THR model) might be more effective in lower-level endurance Study Design. Original articles with a comparison between POL
athletes. and other TID models. In addition, all included articles were
published in English or Spanish.
Methods Study Selection. From scientific databases, potential studies were

Experimental Approach to the Problem directly exported into Covidence (Covidence Systematic Review
Software; Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia;
This scoping review was conducted with the Preferred Reporting available at www.covidence.org) to remove duplicates and per-
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) form the screening by applying the inclusion and exclusion cri-
statement (50) and registered in the Open Science Framework teria previously determined. During the process, 2 researchers
(OSF) platform with the number 10.17605/OSF.IO/HSJPW. (A.V.-S. and T.R.-K.) independently performed the screening and
eligibility from studies to avoid potential bias. First, researchers
performed a screening of titles and abstracts. After that, they
Search Strategy
carried out an independent review of full texts to assess final study
In September 2023, an electronic literature search was conducted eligibility (Figure 2). In case of disagreement, both researchers
on PubMed, Web of Science, SportDiscus, and Scopus. The (A.V.-S. and T.R.-K.) first discuss to resolve conflicts regarding
search was performed using the following keywords combined the selection process. If a consensus was not reached, a third re-
with Boolean operators (AND, OR): “runn*” OR “marathon*” searcher (A.P.-C.) was consulted to make a final decision.
OR “cyclist*” OR “athlet*” OR “triathlet*” OR “rowe*” OR
“rowing*” OR “ski*” OR “swim*” AND “polari* training” OR Data Extraction. In reference to data extraction, 1 researcher
“pyramidal training” OR “threshold training” OR “training in- (T.R.-K.) was responsible for data collection, while 2 researchers
tensity distribution*.” (A.V.-S. and T.R.-K.) checked the extracted data. These 2
researchers discussed disagreements, whereas a third researcher
(A.P.-C.) was consulted to make a final decision if a consensus
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
had not been previously reached. The following information was
The selection criteria were established according to the pop- extracted from each study included in the scoping review, based
ulation, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design on population, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICO)
questions as follows. questions, and compiled in Table 1: reference, sample
Figure 2. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram of
the process used in the selection of the journal articles included in the scoping review.
characteristics (age, sex, weight, V_ O2max—when applicable, between-group comparisons, and (criteria 11) point estimate
sport modality), athletes’ performance classification, training and variability. In reference to the item of subject eligibility
intervention, and comparison description (implemented TID (criteria 1), this is not included in the final 10-point score.
models, training program duration, TID in each zone, weekly During the assessment of the methodological quality, when the 2
training impulse [TRIMPs], weekly training frequency, weekly reviewers (T.R.-K and A.V.-S.) were in disagreement, they first
training volume, PI), and reported outcomes (V_ O2max or discussed, and if they finally did not reach a consensus a third
V_ O2peak, speed or power associated with VT1 or LT1, speed or reviewer (A.P.-C.) was consulted to reach a final decision
power associated with VT2 or LT2, economy of movement, TT or according to a specific item. In addition, based on their meth-
competition performance). Moreover, the effect size (ES), calcu- odological quality, the studies were categorized as poor
lated as Cohen’s d, was extracted and included in Table 1 for (scores #4 points), moderate (scores 5–6 points), and high
significant differences regarding the selected outcomes. In the case quality (scores $7 points).
that ES was not reported, it was calculated, where applicable, as
the difference between the means of the groups divided by the
pooled standard deviations. Thresholds for effects were as fol- Results
lows: 0.20 “small,” 0.50 “medium,” and 0.80 “large.”
Study Selection
A total of 620 articles were originally identified in the databases
Assessment of Methodological Quality of Included Studies
(Pubmed, n 5 105; Web of Science, n 5 227; SportDiscus, n 5
Two reviewers (T.R.-K. and A.V.-S.) independently scored the 117; Scopus, n 5 171). Following the removal of duplicate
methodological quality of each included study using the PEDro records, a total of 306 articles were considered for the next stage.
scale (15). Specifically, the PEDro is a 10-point ordinal scale Afterward, the title and abstract were screened, removing a total
used to determine specific methodological components: (criteria of 281 articles. Then, 25 studies were selected for full-text anal-
2) randomization, (criteria 3) concealed allocation, (criteria 4) yses applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, 15 studies
baseline comparison, (criteria 5) blind subjects, (criteria 6) blind that accomplished the inclusion and exclusion criteria were in-
therapists, (criteria 7) blind assessors, (criteria 8) adequate cluded in this review. The PRISMA flowchart displays the iden-
follow-up, (criteria 9) intention-to-treat analysis, (criteria 10) tification, screening, and inclusion procedure (Figure 2).
Table 1
Sample and studies’ characteristics.*
Training intervention and comparison Reported outcomes [ES]
TID
(%
Z1/ TRIMPs
Sample Performance Intervention Study Z2/ per Sessions Volume Pol. V_ O2max/ s/p s/p Time trial/
Ref. characteristics classification TID model duration Z3) week per week (h·wk21) Index V_ O2peak AerThr AnThr EM competition
(2) 12 elite Tier 3: highly POL 12 wk 82/0/ N/A 6 N/A 3.14 ↑ N/A N/A N/A (S)100-m t↓
adolescent trained/ PYR 18 1.30 [0.16]† [0.83]†
swimmers (12 national level 60/ ↑ (S)800-m t↓
women) 30/ [0.81]† [0.48]†

10
(19) 38 recreational Tier 2: trained/ POL 8 wk 77/3/ 308 6 4 3.7 6 2.71 ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ (R)s↑ [0.10]†
runners (19 developmental THR 20 47 0.3 0.90 ↓ [0.30]† [0.40]† [0.40]† (R)s↑ [0.10]†
women), 41.3 6 40/ 320 6 3.1 6 ↑ ↑ ↑
8.5 y, V_ O2max 50/ 28 0.25 [0.30]† [0.30]† [0.60]†
53.1 6 8.2 10
(20) 60 well-trained Tier 3: highly POL 16 wk 80/6/ 464 6 6 5.8 6 2.27 ↑ ↑ ↑ N/A (R)t↓ [0.24]†
runners (60 trained/ PYR 14 81 0.9 1.43 [0.40]† [0.25]† [0.25]† (R)t↓ [0.11]†
men), 37 6 6 y, national level PYR 1 POL 77/ 463 6 5.9 6 1 ↑ ↑ ↑ (R)t↓ [0.28]†
V_ O2peak 68 6 4 POL 1 PYR 17/6 77 5.7 6 ↑ [0.10]† [0.10]† (R)t↓ [0.16]†
462 6 0.9 [0.40]† ↑ ↑
78 5.9 6 1 ↑ [0.22]† [0.22]†
465 6 [0.47]† ↑ ↑
80 [0.13]† [0.15]†
(21) 60 well-trained Tier 3: highly POL 8 wk 80/6/ 463 6 6–7 5.9 6 2.27 ↑ ↑ ↑ N/A (R)t↓ [0.21]†
runners (60 trained/ PYR 14 15 0.9 1.43 ↑ ↑ ↑ (R)t↓ [0.29]†
men), 34 6 6 y, national level 77/ 464 6 5.8 6 [0.33]†
V_ O2peak 69 6 3 17/6 20 0.9
(46) 32 recreational Tier 2: trained/ POL 10 wk 75/5/ 330 6 5–6 3.9 6 2.48 N/A N/A N/A N/A (R)t↓ [0.41]†
runners (32 developmental THR 20 67 0.79 1.41 (R)t↓ [0.34]†
men), 34 6 2.8 45/ 370 6 3.6 6
y, V_ O2max 63 6 35/ 98 0.81
7,9 20
(47) 12 trained Tier 3: highly POL 6 wk 80/0/ 517 6 N/A 6.3 6 3.18 N/A ↑ ↑ N/A (C)PO↑
cyclists (12 trained/ THR 20 90 1.4 0 [0.59]† ↑ [0.57]†
men), 37 6 6 y national level 57/ 633 6 7.7 6 2 ↑ (C)PO↑
43/0 119 [0.35]†
(55) 22 elite junior Tier 4: elite/ POL 6 wk 81/4/ N/A N/A 862 2.48 5 N/A 5 N/A (S)t↓
swimmers (10 international THR 15 862 1.41 ↑ ↑ (S)t5
women), 17 6 3 level 65/
y 25/
10
(57) 18 trained Tier 2: trained/ POL 4 wk 88/0/ N/A 4 4.26 2.98 N/A N/A N/A N/A (C)PO↑
cyclists (6 developmental THR 12 4.61 0 [0.30]†
women), 38 6 7 70/ (C)PO↑
y 30/0
(58) 15 moderately Tier 2: trained/ POL 6 wk 92/0/ 788 12 10.8 6 2.81 N/A (R)↑ (R)↑ (C)↑ N/A N/A
trained developmental THR 8 941 2.4 0 (C)↑ (R)↑ (C)↓ N/A
triathletes (4 65/ 10.0 6 (R)↓
women), 29.7 6 35/0 2.7 (C)↓
6.9 y
(63) 18 competitive Tier 3: highly POL 4 wk 87/0/ N/A 5 8.3 3.02 N/A N/A ↑ [n/a]† N/A (C)2100-m
mountain bike trained/ LIT 13 13.3 0 ↑ t5
cross-country national level 100/ (C)2100-m
Olympic cyclists 0/0 t5
(4 women), 17.9
6 3.6 y
(68) 18 recreational Tier 2: trained/ POL 13 wk 85/4/ N/A N/A 12 2.37 (R)↑(C)↑ (R)↑ (R)↑(C)↑ N/A (S)800-m t↓
triathletes (18 developmental PYR 11 12 1.09 [n/a]† (C)†↑ [n/a]† [n/a]†
men), 28.9 6 78/ (R)↑(C)↑ [n/a]† (R)↑ (S)800-m t↓
6.9 y, V_ O2max 19/3 [n/a]† (R)↑ (C)†↑ [n/ [n/a]†
56.9 6 5.7 (C)†↑ a]†
[n/a]†
(73) 48 competitive POL 9 wk 68/6/ N/A 6 11.5 6 2.47 ↑ ↑ ↑ [n/a]† N/A
endurance THR 26 5 2.2 0 [0.85]† 5 5
Table 1
Sample and studies’ characteristics.* (Continued)
Training intervention and comparison Reported outcomes [ES]
TID
(%
Z1/ TRIMPs
Sample Performance Intervention Study Z2/ per Sessions Volume Pol. V_ O2max/ s/p s/p Time trial/
Ref. characteristics classification TID model duration Z3) week per week (h·wk21) Index V_ O2peak AerThr AnThr EM competition
athletes, 31 6 6 Tier 3: highly LIT 46/ 5 9.3 6 0.71 5 5 5 ↓

y, V_ O2max 62 6 trained/ HIIT 54/0 5 0.7 N/A ↑ ↑ [n/ ↑ [n/a]† [0.29]†
6 national level 83/ 11.3 6 ↑ a]† ↓
16/1 1.2 [0.45]† ↓

43/0/ 7.3 6 ↓
57 0.1
(72) 36 competitive Tier 3: highly POL 9 wk 68/6/ N/A 661 11.5 6 2.47 N/A N/A ↓ N/A N/A
endurance trained/ HIIT 26 5 6 0.1 2.3 N/A ↑
athletes (3 national level LIT 43/0/ 661 7.3 6 0.26 ↑
women), 31 6 6 57 0.1
y, V_ O2max 61.9 64/ 10.3 6
68 35/1 1.4
(76) 14 elite rowers, Tier 4: elite/ POL 11 wk 93/1/ N/A 861 8,9 6 2.75 5 5 5 N/A (RO)2000-m
20 6 2 y, international PYR 6 7 6 0.3 1,8 1.67 5 ↑ ↑ PO↑, t5
V_ O2max 66 6 5 level 94/4/ 9 6 4.7 (RO)2000-m
2 PO↑, t5
(84) 9 top-level Tier 5: world POL 1 season 85/5/ N/A 12 6 0.3 6 6 1.9 2.23 N/A N/A N/A N/A (SS)500-m t↓
speed skaters (4 class THR THR 10 12 6 0.3 6 6 1.2 0.90 [men: 0.89,
women), 24 6 4 1 season 41/ women:
y, V_ O2max 50.1 POL 51/ 1.54]†
62 10 (SS)1000-m
t↓ [men:
0.80, women:
3.53]†
(SS)500-m
t5
(SS)1000-m
t5
*Ref. 5 references; TID 5 training intensity distribution; Z1 5 training zone 1 (volume below the aerobic threshold); Z2 5 training zone 2 (volume between the aerobic and the anaerobic thresholds); Z3 5
training zone 3 (volume above the anaerobic threshold); POL 5 polarized training model; PYR 5 pyramidal training model; THR 5 threshold training model; HIIT 5 high-intensity interval training; LIT 5 low-
intensity training; Pol. Index 5 polarization index; [ES] 5 effect size reported as Cohen’s d. Please note that ES is only reported for intra-subject significant differences. Thresholds for effects were as follows:
0.20 “small,” 0.50 “medium,” and 0.80 “large.” When nonparametric tests were performed or when only percentage values were reported, ES was not calculated and it is indicated as “not applicable” [n/a];
V_ O2max 5 maximum oxygen uptake expressed in ml·kg21·min21; V_ O2peak 5 peak oxygen uptake expressed in ml·kg21·min21; s/p AerThr 5 speed or power within the aerobic threshold; s/p AnThr 5 speed
or power within the anaerobic threshold; EM 5 economy of movement; TRIMP 5 training impulse; t 5 time; s 5 speed; PO 5 power output; (R) 5 running performance; (C) 5 cycling performance; (S) 5
swimming performance; (RO) 5 rowing performance; (SS) 5 speed skating performance; N/A 5 not applicable.
†Significant differences between pretest and posttest (p , 0.05).
Study Characteristics
Table 2
The main characteristics of the 15 articles included in this scoping Physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro).
review are shown in Table 1. All studies included a total of 412
PEDro ratings
endurance athletes (n 5 62 women) through a crossover design
Study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
(n 5 3) or a randomized trial (n 5 12), while training inter-
ventions lasted between 4 and 52 weeks. Eight articles included Arroyo-Toledo et al. (2) No 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 3
the comparison of the POL model with the THR model, and the Festa et al. (19) Yes 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 6
Filipas et al. (20) Yes 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 7
other studies analyzed the effects of the POL model in comparison
Filipas et al. (21) Yes 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 7
with PYR (n 5 5) or BT models (n 5 3). The main internal load Muñoz et al. (46) Yes 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 6
variables included in this review were V_ O2max or V_ O2peak (n 5 Neal et al. (47) Yes 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 4
8) and economy of movement (n 5 3). Regarding external load, Pla et al. (55) Yes 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 5
speed or power at the aerobic threshold (n 5 8), speed or power Rivera-Kofler et al. (57) Yes 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 3
at the anaerobic threshold (n 5 11), and TT or competition Röhrken et al. (58) Yes 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 5
performance (n 5 13) were analyzed. Schneeweiss et al. (63) Yes 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 5
The interventions in the included studies focused on running Selles-Perez et al. (68) Yes 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 4
(19–21,46), cycling (47,57,63), swimming (2,55), triathlon Stöggl and Sperlich (73) Yes 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 6
(58,68), rowing (76), speed skating (84), and a mix of endurance Stöggl and Björklund (72) Yes 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 5
Treff et al. (76) Yes 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 5
sports (72,73). In this regard, 7 of the included studies were
Yu et al. (84) No 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 5
performed with highly trained/national level athletes (i.e., tier 3),
5 studies were carried out with trained/developmental athletes significant changes in running and cycling performance within the
(i.e., tier 2), while only 2 studies were performed with elite/ aerobic threshold after performing 6 weeks of POL and THR
international level athletes (i.e., tier 4) and 1 with world-class training in a group of trained triathletes (i.e., tier 2).
endurance athletes (i.e., tier 5).
The PI was determined for each TID intervention. The corre- Anaerobic Threshold. Eleven studies analyzed the effects of dif-
sponding values for each model were (for more details, see ferent TID models on the performance within the anaerobic
Table 1): 2.23–3.18 for POL, 1.3–1.67 for PYR, 0–1.41 for THR, threshold, assessing speed or power. Specifically, 3 studies
and 0–0.71 for LIT. (19,47,58) reported positive effects on speed or power associated
Effect size, reported as Cohen’s d, was also extracted and with the anaerobic threshold after applying POL and THR TID
reported for significant differences regarding the selected out- models. In addition, Schneeweiss et al. (63) obtained significant
comes of the included studies (Table 1). enhancements only after POL intervention in comparison with
the baseline measures in a group of mountain bike cross-country

Olympic cyclists (i.e., tier 3). However, these authors did not find
significant differences after LIT. Similarly, Stöggl and Sperlich
Risk of Bias
(73) reported a significant increase in POL and high-intensity
Table 2 presents the scores of each study for each specific meth- interval training (HIIT) groups when comparing pretest and
odological component according to the PEDro scale. In this posttest values in a group of different endurance athletes (i.e., tier
regard, 4 studies (28%) were categorized as poor quality, 9 3). Concretely, this study determined significant differences fa-
studies (64%) as moderate quality, and only 2 (13%) as high voring the POL model compared with the remaining TID models
quality. Concretely, the criteria related to subject blinding (cri- (i.e., THR and LIT), except HIIT. Furthermore, Filipas et al. (20)
teria 5) and assessor blinding (criteria 6–7) were not accom- reported significant improvements in the speed associated with
plished in any of the selected studies. Similarly, only 2 studies the anaerobic threshold after 16 weeks of endurance training for
provided information about concealed allocation (criteria 3). all TID training intervention groups (i.e., POL, PYR, PYR-POL,
and POL-PYR training sequences) in well-trained runners
Maximum Oxygen Uptake. There were 8 studies describing (i.e., tier 3). On the other hand, the study conducted by Selles-
changes in V_ O2max or V_ O2peak. Stöggl and Sperlich (73) showed Perez et al. (68) determined a significant increase in both running
that POL leads to a greater improvement than THR and LIT after speed and cycling power associated with the anaerobic threshold
9 weeks of intervention in a group of well-trained endurance after applying the PYR training model in recreational triathletes
athletes of different modalities (i.e., tier 3). In addition, 2 studies (i.e., tier 2). In contrast to the aforementioned studies, no sub-
(2,68) reported positive changes in V_ O2max but with no signifi- stantial changes were observed after POL and THR training in
cant differences compared with the PYR model in a group of junior swimmers (i.e., tier 4) (55). Similarly, Stöggl and Björklund
highly trained women swimmers (i.e., tier 3) and recreational (72) determined no significant differences between POL, HIIT,
triathletes (i.e., tier 2). Moreover, Filipas et al. (20) showed, in and LIT groups in regional-level endurance athletes (i.e., tier 3).
a group of well-trained runners (i.e., tier 3), a significant in- Finally, Treff et al. (76) did not report significant changes re-
teraction effect between POL and PYR models, but differences garding performance within the anaerobic threshold after ap-
between groups were not reported. By contrast, 3 studies plying POL and PYR models in elite rowers (i.e., tier 4). Similarly,
(19,21,76) revealed no effects on V_ O2max after different endur- a recent study by Filipas et al. (21) also found a nonsignificant
ance training interventions applying POL and PYR models in increase in the speed associated with the anaerobic threshold after
recreational women runners (i.e., tier 2), well-trained runners (tier 8 weeks of POL or PYR training in well-trained runners
3), and elite rowers (i.e., tier 4). Finally, Pla et al. (55) only (i.e., tier 3).
reported quantitative changes of differences, thus no statistical
differences within- and between-groups were presented after Economy of Movement. Only 2 studies analyzed the economy of
following POL and THR TID models in elite junior swimmers movement after the application of TID training models in en-
(i.e., tier 4). durance athletes. In this sense, Festa et al. (19) reported positive
changes after 8 weeks of training on running economy after POL
Aerobic Threshold. Eight studies analyzed the effects of POL vs. and THR models in recreational runners (i.e., tier 2). Similarly,
other TIDs models on the performance within the aerobic Stöggl and Sperlich (73) observed an improvement in work
threshold assessing speed or power. In this line, 3 studies economy after 9 weeks of POL in endurance athletes (i.e., tier 3),
(19,68,73) found that POL was an effective strategy to increase with no differences compared with other TID models.
speed or power associated with the aerobic threshold. Neal et al.
(47) reported significant enhancements only after POL in trained Time-Trial and Competition Performance. There were 10 studies
cyclists (i.e., tier 3), but no significant effects were observed after (2,19–21,46,47,57,63,68,84) reporting significant TT or com-
THR. In addition, Filipas et al. (20,21) showed positive changes petition performance improvements (i.e., decreased time for
in the speed associated with the aerobic threshold after 16 weeks a given distance; or increased speed or power output for a given
of endurance training, independently of the TID and training time or distance) after implementing different TID models. Neal
sequence implemented (i.e., POL, PYR, PYR-POL, and POL-PYR et al. (47) determined significant improvements regarding mean
training sequences) in well-trained runners (i.e., tier 3). In another power output in a 40-km TT after both POL and THR models in
research design, these authors (21) also reported significantly well-trained cyclists (i.e., tier 3), but they did not provide data
greater improvements only after 8 weeks of PYR, but not after concerning the time spent to cover the 40 km. In addition, Rivera-
POL in a group of well-trained runners (i.e., tier 3). Contrary to Kofler et al. (57) also reported increased power output at the
these findings, Treff et al. (76) determined no significant changes functional threshold in a 20-minute TT after following the POL
in national elite rowers (i.e., tier 4) after 11 weeks of POL and model in trained cyclists (i.e., tier 2). On the other hand,
PYR training. Similarly, Röhrken et al. (58) also reported no Schneeweiss et al. (63) showed no significant changes in
a simulated 2100-m race TT in both LIT and POL models in significant differences between both TID models. On the other
mountain bike cross-country Olympic cyclists (i.e., tier 3). Re- hand, Festa et al. (19) and Treff et al. (76) found no significant
garding running performance, Filipas et al. (21) demonstrated an improvements in V_ O2max after implementing POL (77%/3%/
improvement in 5-km TT after implementing 8 weeks of POL or 20% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.71; and 93%/1%/6% for Z1/Z2/Z3,
PYR training, and 16 weeks of different sequences of both POL PI 5 2.75, respectively) and PYR models. In this sense, it is im-
and PYR models among well-trained runners (i.e., tier 3) (20). In portant to mention that both studies carried out a shorter in-
this regard, Festa et al. (19) and Muñoz et al. (46) reported en- tervention period (i.e., 8 and 11 weeks, respectively) and the level
hanced running performance in a 2 km TT and a 10-km race, of athletes was categorized as trained/developmental runners
respectively, after 8–10 weeks of POL or THR training in recre- (i.e., tier 2) (19) and elite/international level rowers (i.e., tier 4)
ational runners (i.e., tier 2 for both). Concerning swimming (76). Finally, Pla et al. (55) showed no statistical differences be-
performance, 2 studies (2,68) showed significant reductions in tween POL (81%/4%/15% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.48) and THR
100-m and 800-m TT after applying POL and PYR models. In models in a group of elite/international level swimmers (i.e., tier
addition, Yu et al. (84) concluded that the POL model signifi- 4), as they only reported quantitative changes of differences.
cantly enhanced the percentage of change in both 500- and 1000- Taken together, the heterogeneity of the present results could
m TT performance compared with the THR model in world-class be partially due to the studies’ sample characteristics
speed skaters (i.e., tier 5). However, these authors reported no (i.e., endurance sport modality, athletes’ level, etc.), as most of the
differences between TID models regarding the total TT for both positive changes on V_ O2max or V_ O2peak were reported in athletes
distances. Conversely, Treff et al. (76) found no significant dif- classified as tier 3 or higher after performing POL or PYR train-
ferences between pretest and posttest in 2000-m TT performance ing. Another fact that could explain the differences between TID
after following POL or PYR models in national elite rowers models is the percentage of training accumulated in each training
(i.e., tier 4). In this line, Pla et al. (55) also reported no significant zone. For instance, POL training interventions ranged from 68 to
changes in swimming (i.e., tier 4) performance after implementing 93% in Z1, from 0 to 6% in Z2, and from 6 to 26% in Z3.
POL and THR models. Furthermore, PI was quite consistent between studies, ranging
from 2.27 to 3.14, which could be considered a high level of
polarization (77). In this sense, scientific literature recommended
the implementation of HIIT consisting of 2–3-minute work
Discussion intervals performed close to 100% of the maximal aerobic speed
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review examining the or maximal aerobic power (i.e., Z3), interspersed with active or
effects of different TID models on key physiological and perfor- passive recovery intervals with a work-to-rest ratio of 1:1 and
mance variables reporting the PI and endurance athletes’ level a high training volume (i.e., $15 minutes) for optimizing V_ O2max
according to a classification framework (44). The main findings (79). These recommendations would support the application of
of our review were as follows: (a) POL and PYR models seem to both POL and PYR models, as they allow athletes to accumulate
be more effective than other TID models regarding functional a greater volume of training in Z3 than other TID approaches.
capacity enhancement (i.e., V_ O2max or V_ O2peak), without dif- Similarly, from a physiological mechanism standpoint, and
ferences between them; (b) POL and PYR models are effective according to previous scientific literature, it could be hypothe-
strategies to enhance speed or power within the aerobic threshold; sized that both POL and PYR TID may produce superior V_ O2max
(c) POL, PYR and THR TID models reported positive effects on gains by optimizing both central (i.e., increased cardiac output
speed or power within the anaerobic threshold; however, the and plasma volume) and peripheral (i.e., increased mitochondrial
results are quite heterogeneous; (d) both POL and THR models biogenesis and capillary density of the skeletal muscle) aerobic
may enhance economy of movement; nevertheless, the results are adaptations (7,29,81). On the other hand, based on the studies
inconclusive, as there are scarce studies analyzing this variable; analyzed, the intervention period could also influence changes in
and (e) TT and competition performance increased after applying functional capacity, as longer training periods seem to report
different TID models (i.e., POL, PYR, LIT, and THR), but testing greater improvements in V_ O2max. Therefore, from a practical
protocols were not comparable; however, POL and PYR models perspective, the implementation of POL and PYR TID models
seem to be more effective in elite/international or world-class seems to be appropriate for improving V_ O2max or V_ O2peak, es-
athletes, while in lower-level athletes the differences between TID pecially in high-level endurance athletes, while other TID models
models are negligible. may also be effective in lower-level athletes.
The majority of studies reported greater improvements in More than half of the studies included in the present review
V_ O2max or V_ O2peak after following POL or PYR TID models. In analyzed the effects of different TID models on performance
this regard, the POL model (68%/6%/26% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 within the aerobic threshold. Three of them found POL training
2.47) seems to be superior to the THR and LIT models for highly as an effective strategy to enhance power or speed associated with
trained/national level endurance athletes (i.e., tier 3) after per- the aerobic threshold. Festa et al. (19) reported significant
forming 9 weeks of training (73). Further, when POL (80%/6%/ improvements in the speed associated with the aerobic threshold
14% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.27) and PYR TID models are imple- after performing 8 weeks of POL (i.e., 77%/3%/20% for Z1/Z2/
mented, scientific evidence found positive changes in V_ O2max in Z3, PI 5 2.71) and THR training with trained/developmental
a group of highly trained/national level runners (i.e., tier 3) after runners (i.e., tier 2), without differences between interventions (4
16 weeks of training (20), but after 8 weeks of training these vs. 3.2% improvement, respectively). Selles-Pérez et al. (68) also
improvements were not significant (21). Similarly, other studies found significant enhancements in running and cycling perfor-
performed with highly trained/national level swimmers (i.e., tier mance within the aerobic threshold in a group of trained/
3) (2) and trained/developmental triathletes (i.e., tier 2) (68) developmental triathletes (i.e., tier 2) who performed 13 weeks of
showed V_ O2max enhancements after following 12–13 weeks of POL (i.e., 85%/4%/11% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.37) and PYR
POL (82%/0%/18% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 3.14; and 85%/4%/ training, without differences between models. Similarly, Stöggl
11% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.37, respectively) or PYR, without and Sperlich (73) implemented 9 weeks of POL (i.e., 68%/6%/
26% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.47) vs. other TID models (including changes in this variable after following 6 weeks of training in
THR, LIT, and HIIT) in highly trained/national level endurance highly trained/national level cyclists (i.e., tier 3) and trained/
athletes (i.e., tier 3). They found a nonsignificant enhancement in developmental triathletes (i.e., tier 2), respectively. However,
the power or speed associated with the aerobic threshold in the other studies (63,73) found significant positive changes in the
POL group (9.3 6 12.4%), while the HIIT group (12.1 6 8.8%) speed or power associated with the anaerobic threshold only after
reported significant improvements, but without differences be- implementing POL, without significant differences compared
tween protocols. On the other hand, Neal et al. (47) demonstrated with other TID models. Specifically, Schneeweiss et al. (63)
significant improvements only after performing POL training in reported a significant enhancement in cycling power output at
highly trained/national-level cyclists (i.e., tier 3). These authors both individual anaerobic lactate threshold (5.1%) and 4 mmol
carried out a study implementing 6 weeks of POL (i.e., 80%/0%/ lactate threshold (6.1%) in a group of highly trained/national
20% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 3.18) vs. THR training. This study level (i.e., tier 3) mountain bike cross-country Olympic cyclists
reported significant enhancements in the power within the aero- after performing only 4 weeks of POL training (i.e., 87%/0%/
bic threshold for the POL group compared with the THR group 13% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 3.02). In the same line, Stöggl and
(improvement of 9 6 9% vs. 2 6 14% W, respectively). Fur- Sperlich (73) found significant enhancements in the power or
thermore, an interesting study by Filipas et al. (20) consisting of speed within the anaerobic threshold (8.1 6 4.6% for POL vs.
16 weeks of training following POL (i.e., 80%/6%/14% for Z1/ 5.6 6 4.8% for HIIT models) after implementing 9 weeks of POL
Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.27), PYR, POL-PYR sequence and PYR-POL se- (i.e., 68%/6%/26% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.47) vs. other TID
quence (i.e., 8 weeks each TID model for the sequences) in highly models (including THR, LIT, and HIIT) with highly trained/
trained/national level runners (i.e., tier 3) showed positive sig- national level endurance athletes (i.e., tier 3), but without differ-
nificant changes for all interventions. However, the authors ences between protocols. Moreover, Filipas et al. (20), demon-
demonstrated that the PYR-POL training sequence led to higher strated that 16 weeks of PYR-POL training sequence led to higher
enhancements in the speed associated with the aerobic threshold enhancements in the speed associated with the anaerobic
than other TID models. Similarly, in a more recent study, these threshold than the opposite sequence order, or isolated POL or
authors (21) also found significant improvements in the speed PYR training in a group of highly trained/national level runners
within the aerobic threshold after performing 8 weeks of PYR (i.e., tier 3). Regarding triathlon performance, Selles-Perez et al.
training, but not after POL, among well-trained runners (i.e., tier (68) found a significant increase in cycling power associated with
3). Finally, Treff et al. (76) reported no significant changes in the anaerobic threshold after performing 13 weeks of POL or
power associated with the aerobic threshold after 11 weeks of PYR training in recreational triathletes (i.e., tier 2). However, the
POL (i.e., 93%/1%/6% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.75) and PYR running speed within the anaerobic threshold was only signifi-
training in elite/international level rowers (i.e., tier 4). In this line, cantly higher after following the PYR model (2.6%, ES d 5 0.27).
Röhrken et al. (58) also found no significant changes in running On the other hand, 4 studies (21,55,72,76) reported no sig-
and cycling performance within the aerobic threshold after fol- nificant changes in the performance within the anaerobic
lowing 6 weeks of POL (i.e., 92%/0%/8% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 threshold. In a recent study, Filipas et al. (21) showed a non-
2.81) and THR training in a group of trained/developmental significant enhancement in the running speed associated with the
triathletes (i.e., tier 2). anaerobic threshold after performing 8 weeks of either POL or
Considering the data mentioned above, most of the studies PYR training in well-trained runners (i.e., tier 3). Pla et al. (55)
analyzed reported positive changes in performance within the determined no significant changes in elite/international level ju-
aerobic threshold after applying POL and PYR models. These nior swimmers (i.e., tier 4) after 6 weeks of POL (i.e., 81%/4%/
studies were carried out with endurance athletes classified in tiers 15% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.48) and THR training. Stöggl and
2 and 3, while the percentage of training volume accumulated in Björklund (72) also found no positive changes after 9 weeks of
Z1 for the different POL training interventions ranged from 68 to POL training (i.e., 68%/6%/26% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.47)
93%. In this regard, previous scientific literature consistently compared with other TID models (i.e., HIIT and LIT) in highly
demonstrated that training volume spent in Z1 correlates with trained/national level endurance athletes (i.e., tier 3). Similarly,
endurance performance in different endurance-sport modalities Treff et al. (76) reported no significant changes in power within
(17,18,46). Furthermore, training interventions lasted between 6 the anaerobic threshold after 11 weeks of POL (i.e., 93%/1%/6%
and 16 weeks and PI ranged from 2.27 to 3.18, which is catego- for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.75) and PYR training in elite/international
rized as highly polarized (77). Thus, different-level endurance level rowers (i.e., tier 4).
athletes aiming to improve their speed or power within the aer- Taken together, POL, PYR, and THR TID models seem to be
obic threshold should implement POL or PYR models and, valid for improving speed or power associated with the anaerobic
therefore, accumulate a great volume of exercise in Z1 for en- threshold. Concerning this, it is important to note that perfor-
hancing endurance performance. mance within the anaerobic threshold may be enhanced by
The effects of different TID models on the performance within training at different intensities (36,39), which may make it ap-
the anaerobic threshold were investigated in 11 of the included propriate for the implementation of different TID models. On the
studies. Festa et al. (19) showed significant improvements in the other hand, the heterogeneity of the studies regarding athletes’
speed associated with the anaerobic threshold after performing level and endurance-sport modality, percentage of total training
8 weeks of POL (i.e., 77%/3%/20% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.71) volume accumulated in each training zone, and intervention pe-
and THR training with trained/developmental runners (i.e., tier riod durations makes it difficult to generalize the results of sci-
2), without differences between interventions (5.7 vs. 3.4% im- entific evidence. In this regard, the studies that reported positive
provement, respectively). Neal et al. (47) and Röhrken et al. (58) effects on performance within the anaerobic threshold were per-
also compared the effects of POL (i.e., 80%/0%/20% for Z1/Z2/ formed with endurance athletes classified as tier 2 or 3, who ac-
Z3, PI 5 3.18, and 92%/0%/8% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.81, re- cumulated between 68 and 93% of the total training volume in
spectively) and THR TID models on the performance within the Z1, 0–6% in Z2, and 8–26% in Z3, while PI ranged from 2.27 to
anaerobic threshold, reporting positive but nonsignificant 3.18. Interestingly, the 3 studies that found no effects of POL on
this variable were carried out with high performance level en- which traditionally corresponds to the THR model (10,12).
durance athletes (i.e., tiers 3 and 4). Therefore, further studies are Nevertheless, when comparing performance results in lower-level
needed to elucidate the optimal TID model for maximizing speed endurance athletes (tiers 2 and 3) following different TID models,
or power within the anaerobic threshold. To date, scientific evi- no study has shown significant differences in sports performance.
dence suggests the appropriateness of implementing POL, PYR, This lack of differences in endurance performance (e.g., TT and
and THR models for this purpose, without differences competition performance) and physiological variables
between them. (i.e., V_ O2max, speed or power associated with both aerobic and
Two of the selected studies analyzed the economy of move- anaerobic thresholds, and economy of movement) (Table 1) be-
ment in athletes of different endurance-sport modalities. Festa tween the different TID models has been well documented in early
et al. (19) demonstrated significant enhancements in running studies that implemented THR with athletes classified as tiers 1–3
economy, which is traditionally defined as the energy cost for (i.e., recreationally active to highly trained) (16,24,42).
a submaximal running speed (36,61), after applying 8 weeks of One possible explanation for this absence of difference be-
POL (i.e., 77%/3%/20% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.71) and THR tween TID models in lower tiers could be the heterogeny
training in trained/developmental (i.e., tier 2) runners, without characteristics of the tests or competitions in which perfor-
differences between interventions (25.3% vs. 28.7% for POL mance was measured. For example, in our analyses, only 1
and THR, respectively). Another study performed by Stöggl study (47) measured endurance performance with a TT proxy
and Sperlich (73) with highly trained/national level endurance for a duration of 1 hour, which allows the development of an
athletes (i.e., tier 3) also reported significant improvements in exercise intensity close to the anaerobic threshold. In the
the economy of movement of approximately 25% (expressed present review, all the remaining works that have measured
as a percent of V_ O2peak) after 9 weeks of POL (i.e., 68%/6%/ endurance performance implemented tests or competitions
26% for Z1/Z2/Z3, PI 5 2.47), without differences compared that vary from 36 seconds (84) to 43 minutes (63), which leads
with other TID models (i.e., THR, LIT, HIIT). Owing to the to the assumption that the intensity of execution was clearly
scarce number of scientific studies investigating the effects of above the anaerobic threshold. In this sense, POL and PYR
different TID models on the economy of movement, it is difficult models accumulate more training time close to a specific race
to draw conclusions. Further studies are needed to determine pace. Nevertheless, these models are characterized by accu-
what TID model optimizes the economy of movement, espe- mulating not only an important volume of training in the se-
cially when athletes’ level and endurance-sport modality are vere domain but also a great volume in Z1, which could be
considered. related to a specific race pace in long-distance events (e.g.,
Concerning endurance performance, scientific evidence ultramarathon, Ironman, etc). For this reason, it is very diffi-
highlighted POL and PYR TID models as 2 of the most effective cult to determine the superiority of a TID model regarding
TID models for enhancing athletic performance. Based on endurance performance, as the way it is measured could rep-
previous results (2,20,21,68,76), there were no significant resent a specific training intensity vs. another model that barely
differences regarding endurance performance between POL focuses on that training zone. Therefore, available scientific
and PYR TID models. In addition, it was reported no signifi- evidence has reported endurance performance enhancements
cant improvements for POL and LIT models during a simu- by following different TID models. Further, based on previous
lated mountain bike cross-country race (58,63). This lack of studies it seems that higher-level endurance athletes may be
significant differences is independent of the percentage of more benefited from POL and PYR models, while among
volume accumulated in each zone. Therefore, there seems to be lower-level athletes the differences between TID models are
no optimal distribution between training zones that would negligible.
result in greater performance. In this sense, a minimum per- One of the main limitations of the present review is the het-
centage of training volume in Z3 seems to be necessary for erogeneity of the included studies. Considering the total sample, it
performance improvement, although a large percentage in the was composed of endurance athletes of various modalities
so-called severe domain does not result in higher performance. (i.e., running, cycling, triathlon, swimming, skiing, speed skating,
There are different interventions in which the percentage of and rowing) and levels (i.e., tiers 2–4). This fact may limit the
training in Z3 for the POL model ranges from 6% (76) to 26% extrapolation of a specific modality to other exercise regimes. The
(72,73). Although all of these studies reported performance great majority of studies were performed with trained/
enhancements following POL, they did not show significant developmental and highly trained/national level athletes (12 of
differences compared with other TID models (2,68,76). 15 studies), which could make it difficult to extrapolate con-
Therefore, it is necessary to train a minimum percentage of the clusions to higher-level athletes. Similarly, TID varied between
total time in the severe domain. However, the question of how POL interventions, and accumulated training volume ranged
much volume an athlete should train in this zone remains from 68 to 93% for Z1, from 0 to 6% for Z2, and from 6 to 26%
unclear. for Z3. However, the PI of most of the studies reported POL
The hypothetical superiority of POL and PYR has only been interventions that could be considered as highly polarized (i.e., PI
demonstrated in elite/international or world-class athletes (tiers 4 quite higher than 2.0) (77). Furthermore, many of the included
and 5, respectively) (55,84). For a major understanding of this studies did not consider an equaled total training load and
topic, we encourage to revise the studies performed by Burnley training volume per week, which makes it difficult to establish the
et al. (10) and Foster et al. (23) in which 2 different perspectives superiority of 1 TID over others. Similarly, endurance and com-
are exhaustively discussed. The superiority of these TID models petition performance evaluation protocols include a plethora of
(i.e., POL and PYR) in elite and world-class athletes might be durations and intensities barely comparable between them. In this
supported by the necessity of accumulating a great LIT volume respect, we recommend for future research to report the per-
combined with HIT to achieve new adaptations and hence, im- centage of volume spent in, at least, a 5-zone model as shown in
prove endurance performance. This situation makes it difficult to Figure 1. This 5-zone model is widely used to establish main
perform a high volume of training in Z2 (i.e., heavy domain), training zones for endurance sports, including easy, moderate,
10
threshold, interval, and maximal intensity training efforts (66). Acknowledgments

Furthermore, recent scientific evidence has suggested that a 5-
This study received no financial support. There are no conflicts of
zone model may aid in understanding physiological performance
interest to declare. The results of this study do not constitute an
progression in highly trained rowers (82). To date, the majority of
endorsement of the product by the authors or the National
studies reported TID based solely on the classical triphasic model
Strength and Conditioning Association.
(69). This makes it difficult to accurately assess the real TID of
a training program. For instance, an athlete may accumulate
a training volume of 3 hours per week at an intensity slightly References
above the aerobic threshold, while another athlete may perform 1. Alvero-Cruz JR, Carnero EA, Garcı́a MAG, et al. Predictive performance
the same volume but at an intensity slightly below the anaerobic models in long-distance runners: A narrative review. Int J Environ Res
threshold. Following the triphasic model proposed by Skinner Public Health 17: 8289, 2020.
and McLellan (69), the TID in both cases would be reported as Z2 2. Arroyo-Toledo J, Sortwell A, Clemente-Suárez V. The effect of 12-week of
(i.e., heavy domain). However, even if both athletes would the- pyramidal and polarized training intensity distribution in national elite
adolescent swimmers. J Swim Res 28: 36–47, 2021.
oretically accumulate the same training volume in the same 3. Barnes KR, Kilding AE. Running economy: Measurement, norms, and
training intensity zone, variations in exercise intensity can lead to determining factors. Sports Med Open 1: 8, 2015.
different physiological adaptations that impact endurance per- 4. Billat LV, Koralsztein JP. Significance of the velocity at VO2max and time
formance. In this sense, it would be necessary to report the to exhaustion at this velocity. Sports Med 22: 90–108, 1996.
5. Billat VL, Slawinski J, Bocquet V, et al. Intermittent runs at the velocity
amount of training (i.e., time or kilometer) spent in Z1 and Z2 associated with maximal oxygen uptake enables subjects to remain at
(i.e., below the aerobic threshold), and in Z3 (i.e., between the maximal oxygen uptake for a longer time than intense but submaximal
aerobic and anaerobic thresholds) of the above-mentioned 5-zone runs. Eur J Appl Physiol 81: 188–196, 2000.
model to establish potential differences in physiological adapta- 6. Bishop DJ, Botella J, Genders AJ, et al. High-intensity exercise and mi-
tions and, hence, in the percentage of TID. While in this 5-zone tochondrial biogenesis: Current controversies and future research direc-
tions. Physiology 34: 56–70, 2019.
model, Z1 is more closely related to recovery intensity, Z2 has 7. Bishop DJ, Botella J, Granata C. CrossTalk opposing view: Exercise
been rediscovered as a potential zone for improving oxidative training volume is more important than training intensity to promote
phosphorylation of the cell, thereby improving mitochondrial increases in mitochondrial content. J Physiol 597: 4115–4118, 2019.
biogenesis and function (26,27,80), without depleting glycogen 8. Borszcz FK, Tramontin AF, Bossi AH, Carminatti LJ, Costa VP. Func-
tional threshold power in cyclists: Validity of the concept and physiolog-
stores by maximizing fat oxidation (48,60). On the other hand, ical responses. Int J Sports Med 39: 737–742, 2018.
Z3 of the 5-zone model is related to tempo training. This zone is 9. Brodal P, Ingjer F, Hermansen L. Capillary supply of skeletal muscle fibers
one of the widest in terms of the range of developed intensities in untrained and endurance-trained men. Am J Physiol 232: H705–H712,
(Figure 1). Similarly, zone 4 is located close to the anaerobic 1977.
threshold, which is a key metabolic point and is highly related to 10. Burnley M, Bearden SE, Jones AM. Polarized training is not optimal for
endurance athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 54: 1032–1034, 2022.
athletic performance (54). Finally, zone 5 represents the intensity 11. Campos Y, Casado A, Vieira JG, et al. Training-intensity distribution on
range from the steady-state point to the break of this state and the middle- and long-distance runners: A systematic review. Int J Sports Med
achievement of V_ O2max intensity. This rationale may support the 43: 305–316, 2022.
appropriateness of reporting training volume in a 5-zone model, 12. Casado A, González-Mohı́no F, González-Ravé JM, Foster C. Training
periodization, methods, intensity distribution, and volume in highly
thus new TIDs could be determined and other paradigms could be trained and elite distance runners: A systematic review. Int J Sports Physiol
proposed in future research. Perform 17: 820–833, 2022.
13. Cerezuela-Espejo V, Courel-Ibáñez J, Morán-Navarro R, Martı́nez-Cava
A, Pallarés JG. The relationship between lactate and ventilatory thresholds
in runners: Validity and reliability of exercise test performance parame-
Practical Applications ters. Front Physiol 9: 1320, 2018.
14. Dawson B, Fitzsimons M, Green S, et al. Changes in performance, muscle
The main findings of our scoping review were that POL and metabolites, enzymes and fibre types after short sprint training. Eur J Appl
PYR models seem to be more sensitive than other TID models Physiol Occup Physiol 78: 163–169, 1998.
regarding functional capacity enhancement (i.e., V_ O2max or 15. de Morton NA. The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological
quality of clinical trials: A demographic study. Aust J Physiother 55:
V_ O2peak). Concerning both aerobic and anaerobic thresh- 129–133, 2009.
olds, POL and PYR seem to have a greater impact in im- 16. Denis C, Dormois D, Lacour JR. Endurance training, VO2 max, and
proving speed or power associated with the aerobic threshold, OBLA: A longitudinal study of two different age groups. Int J Sports Med
while many other TID models (i.e., POL, PYR, and THR) 5: 167–173, 1984.
17. Esteve-Lanao J, San Juan AF, Earnest CP, Foster C, Lucia A. How do
were effective in enhancing speed or power associated with the endurance runners actually train? Relationship with competition perfor-
anaerobic threshold. However, more research is needed to mance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 496–504, 2005.
establish the effects of different TID models on the economy of 18. Esteve-Lanao J, Foster C, Seiler S, Lucia A. Impact of training intensity
movement. Finally, endurance performance seems to be im- distribution on performance in endurance athletes. J Strength Cond Res
21: 943–949, 2007.
proved with all TID models due to the heterogeneity of testing
19. Festa L, Tarperi C, Skroce K, La Torre A, Schena F. Effects of different
protocols. In conclusion, POL and PYR models seem to be training intensity distribution in recreational runners. Front Sports Act
more effective in elite/international and world-class athletes, Living 1: 70, 2019.
whereas in lower-level athletes the differences between TID 20. Filipas L, Bonato M, Gallo G, Codella R. Effects of 16 weeks of pyramidal
models are negligible. We consider this information of great and polarized training intensity distributions in well-trained endurance
runners. Scand J Med Sci Sports 32: 498–511, 2022.
interest, as it can shed some light to help coaches and athletes 21. Filipas L, Bonato M, Maggio A, Gallo G, Codella R. Effects of plyometric
to better select the optimal TID model for maximizing sport- training on different 8-week training intensity distributions in well-trained
specific endurance performance, especially when athletes’ endurance runners. Scand J Med Sci Sports 33: 200–212, 2023.
level and endurance-sport modality are considered. 22. Foster C, Lucia A. Running economy: The forgotten factor in elite per-
formance. Sports Med 37: 316–319, 2007.
11
23. Foster C, Casado A, Esteve-Lanao J, Haugen T, Seiler S. Polarized training 48. Nemkov T, Cendali F, Stefanoni D, et al. Metabolic signatures of per-
is optimal for endurance athletes: Response to burnley, bearden, and formance in elite world tour professional male cyclists. Sports Med 53:
jones. Med Sci Sports Exerc 54: 1035–1037, 2022. 1651–1665, 2023.
24. Gaskill SE, Walker AJ, Serfass RA, et al. Changes in ventilatory threshold 49. Nixon RJ, Kranen SH, Vanhatalo A, Jones AM. Steady-state [formula: See
with exercise training in a sedentary population: The HERITAGE family text] above MLSS: Evidence that critical speed better represents maximal
study. Int J Sports Med 22: 586–592, 2001. metabolic steady state in well-trained runners. Eur J Appl Physiol 121:
25. González-Ravé JM, Hermosilla F, González-Mohı́no F, Casado A, Pyne 3133–3144, 2021.
DB. Training intensity distribution, training volume, and periodization 50. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement:
models in elite swimmers: A systematic review. Int J Sports Physiol Per- An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372: n71,
form 16: 913–926, 2021. 2021.
26. Granata C, Oliveira RSF, Little JP, Renner K, Bishop DJ. Training in- 51. Pallarés JG, Morán-Navarro R. Methodological approach to the
tensity modulates changes in PGC-1a and p53 protein content and mi- cardiorespiratory endurance training. J Sport Health Res 42:
tochondrial respiration, but not markers of mitochondrial content in 119–136, 2012.
human skeletal muscle. FASEB J 30: 959–970, 2016. 52. Pallarés JG, Morán-Navarro R, Ortega JF, Fernández-Elı́as VE, Mora-
27. Granata C, Jamnick NA, Bishop DJ. Principles of exercise prescription, Rodriguez R. Validity and reliability of ventilatory and blood lactate
and how they influence exercise-induced changes of transcription factors thresholds in well-trained cyclists. PLoS One 11: e0163389, 2016.
and other regulators of mitochondrial biogenesis. Sports Med 48: 53. Pérez A, Ramos-Campo DJ, Freitas TT, et al. Effect of two different in-
1541–1559, 2018. tensity distribution training programmes on aerobic and body composi-
28. Guellich A, Seiler S, Emrich E. Training methods and intensity distribution tion variables in ultra-endurance runners. Eur J Sport Sci 19: 636–644,
of young world-class rowers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 4: 448–460, 2019.
2009. 54. Philp A, Macdonald AL, Carter H, Watt PW, Pringle JS. Maximal lac-
29. Haugen T, Sandbakk Ø, Seiler S, Tønnessen E. The training characteristics tate steady state as a training stimulus. Int J Sports Med 29: 475–479,
of world-class distance runners: An integration of scientific literature and 2008.
results-proven practice. Sports Med Open 8: 46, 2022. 55. Pla R, Le Meur Y, Aubry A, Toussaint JF, Hellard P. Effects of a 6-week
30. Helgerud J, Høydal K, Wang E, et al. Aerobic high-intensity intervals period of polarized or threshold training on performance and fatigue in
improve VO2max more than moderate training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: elite swimmers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 14: 183–189, 2019.
665–671, 2007. 56. Possamai LT, Borszcz FK, de Aguiar RA, de Lucas RD, Turnes T.
31. Hill DW, Williams CS, Burt SE. Responses to exercise at 92% and 100% Agreement of maximal lactate steady state with critical power and
of the velocity associated with VO2max. Int J Sports Med 18: 325–329, physiological thresholds in rowing. Eur J Sport Sci 22: 371–380,
1997. 2022.
32. Inglis EC, Iannetta D, Passfield L, Murias JM. Maximal lactate steady 57. Rivera-Kofler TI, Zavala-Crichton J, Olivares-Arancibia J, Yáñez-Sepúl-
state versus the 20-minute functional threshold power test in well-trained veda R. Effect of two training schedules with different distribution of
individuals: “Watts” the big deal? Int J Sports Physiol Perform 15: intensity (polarized vs threshold) in the aerobic performance in trained
541–547, 2020. cyclists. Retos 39: 685–690, 2021.
33. Issurin VB. Biological background of block periodized endurance training: 58. Röhrken G, Held S, Donath L. Six weeks of polarized versus moderate
A review. Sports Med 49: 31–39, 2019. intensity distribution: A pilot intervention study. Front Physiol 11:
34. Jeffries O, Simmons R, Patterson SD, Waldron M. Functional threshold 534688, 2020.
power is not equivalent to lactate parameters in trained cyclists. J Strength 59. Rosenblat MA, Perrotta AS, Vicenzino B. Polarized vs. threshold training
Cond Res 35: 2790–2794, 2021. intensity distribution on endurance sport performance: A systematic re-
35. Jones AM, Burnley M, Black MI, Poole DC, Vanhatalo A. The maximal view and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Strength Cond
metabolic steady state: Redefining the “gold standard.” Physiol Rep 7: Res 33: 3491–3500, 2019.
e14098, 2019. 60. San-Millán I, Brooks GA. Assessment of metabolic flexibility by means of
36. Jones AM, Kirby BS, Clark IE, et al. Physiological demands of running at measuring blood lactate, fat, and carbohydrate oxidation responses to
2-hour marathon race pace. J Appl Physiol (1985) 130: 369–379, 2021. exercise in professional endurance athletes and less-fit individuals. Sports
37. Jones AM. The fourth dimension: Physiological resilience as an in- Med 48: 467–479, 2018.
dependent determinant of endurance exercise performance. J Physiol 602: 61. Saunders PU, Pyne DB, Telford RD, Hawley JA. Factors affecting running
4113–4128, 2024. economy in trained distance runners. Sports Med 34: 465–485, 2004.
38. Joyner MJ, Coyle EF. Endurance exercise performance: The physiology of 62. Scherr J, Wolfarth B, Christle JW, et al. Associations between Borg’s rating
champions. J Physiol 586: 35–44, 2008. of perceived exertion and physiological measures of exercise intensity. Eur
39. Joyner MJ, Hunter SK, Lucia A, Jones AM. Physiology and fast mar- J Appl Physiol 113: 147–155, 2013.
athons. J Appl Physiol (1985) 128: 1065–1068, 2020. 63. Schneeweiss P, Schellhorn P, Haigis D, et al. Effect of two different training
40. Keir DA, Fontana FY, Robertson TC, et al. Exercise intensity thresholds: interventions on cycling performance in mountain bike cross-country
Identifying the boundaries of sustainable performance. Med Sci Sports Olympic athletes. Sports 10: 53, 2022.
Exerc 47: 1932–1940, 2015. 64. Seiler KS, Kjerland GØ. Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite
41. Kenneally M, Casado A, Santos-Concejero J. The effect of periodization endurance athletes: Is there evidence for an “optimal” distribution? Scand
and training intensity distribution on middle- and long-distance running J Med Sci Sports 16: 49–56, 2006.
performance: A systematic review. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 13: 65. Seiler S, Tønnessen E. Intervals, thresholds, and long slow distance: The
1114–1121, 2018. role of intensity and duration in endurance training. Sportscience 13:
42. Londeree BR. Effect of training on lactate/ventilatory thresholds: A meta- 32–53, 2009.
analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 29: 837–843, 1997. 66. Seiler S. What is best practice for training intensity and duration distri-
43. Mattioni Maturana F, Keir DA, McLay KM, Murias JM. Can measures of bution in endurance athletes? Int J Sports Physiol Perform 5: 276–291,
critical power precisely estimate the maximal metabolic steady-state? Appl 2010.
Physiol Nutr Metab 41: 1197–1203, 2016. 67. Seiler S. Training intensity distribution: The why behind the what. In:
44. McKay AKA, Stellingwerff T, Smith ES, et al. Defining training and per- Endurance Training: Science and Practice. Mujika I, ed. Vitoria-Gasteiz:
formance caliber: A participant classification framework. Int J Sports Iñigo Mujika, 2023. pp. 41–54.
Physiol Perform 17: 317–331, 2022. 68. Selles-Perez S, Fernández-Sáez J, Cejuela R. Polarized and pyramidal
45. Mølmen KS, Øfsteng SJ, Rønnestad BR. Block periodization of endurance training intensity distribution: Relationship with a half-ironman distance
training—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Access J Sports triathlon competition. J Sports Sci Med 18: 708–715, 2019.
Med 10: 145–160, 2019. 69. Skinner JS, McLellan TM. The transition from aerobic to anaerobic me-
46. Muñoz I, Seiler S, Bautista J, et al. Does polarized training improve per- tabolism. Res Q Exerc Sport 51: 234–248, 1980.
formance in recreational runners? Int J Sports Physiol Perform 9: 70. Smith CGM, Jones AM. The relationship between critical velocity, max-
265–272, 2014. imal lactate steady-state velocity and lactate turnpoint velocity in runners.
47. Neal CM, Hunter AM, Brennan L, et al. Six weeks of a polarized training- Eur J Appl Physiol 85: 19–26, 2001.
intensity distribution leads to greater physiological and performance 71. Solli GS, Tønnessen E, Sandbakk Ø. Block vs. traditional periodization of
adaptations than a threshold model in trained cyclists. J Appl Physiol 114: HIT: Two different paths to success for the world’s best cross-country
461–471, 2013. skier. Front Physiol 10: 375, 2019.
12
72. Stöggl TL, Björklund G. High intensity interval training leads to greater 79. Varela-Sanz A, Sánchez-Otero T, Tuimil JL, Boullosa D, Iglesias-Soler E.
improvements in acute heart rate recovery and anaerobic power as high Influence of recovery mode on the maximum number of intervals until
volume low intensity training. Front Physiol 8: 562, 2017. exhaustion during an aerobic interval training session. J Strength Cond
73. Stöggl T, Sperlich B. Polarized training has greater impact on key endur- Res 37: e510–e520, 2023.
ance variables than threshold, high intensity, or high volume training. 80. Wang L, Psilander N, Tonkonogi M, Ding S, Sahlin K. Similar expression
Front Physiol 5: 33, 2014. of oxidative genes after interval and continuous exercise. Med Sci Sports
74. Stöggl TL, Sperlich B. The training intensity distribution among well- Exerc 41: 2136–2144, 2009.
trained and elite endurance athletes. Front Physiol 6: 295, 2015. 81. Warburton DER, Haykowsky MJ, Quinney HA, et al. Blood volume
75. Stöggl TL, Sperlich B. Editorial: Training intensity, volume and recovery expansion and cardiorespiratory function: Effects of training modality.
distribution among elite and recreational endurance athletes. Front Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 991–1000, 2004.
Physiol 10: 592, 2019. 82. Watts SP, Binnie MJ, Goods PSR, et al. Demarcation of intensity from 3 to
76. Treff G, Winkert K, Sareban M, et al. Eleven-week preparation involving 5 zones aids in understanding physiological performance progression in
polarized intensity distribution is not superior to pyramidal distribution in highly trained under-23 rowing athletes. J Strength Cond Res 37:
national elite rowers. Front Physiol 8: 515, 2017. e593–e600, 2023.
77. Treff G, Winkert K, Sareban M, Steinacker JM, Sperlich B. The polarization- 83. Wong S, Burnley M, Mauger A, Fenghua S, Hopker J. Functional
index: A simple calculation to distinguish polarized from non-polarized threshold power is not a valid marker of the maximal metabolic steady
training intensity distributions. Front Physiol 10: 707, 2019. state. J Sports Sci 40: 2578–2584, 2022.
78. Valenzuela PL, Alejo LB, Montalvo-Pérez A, et al. Relationship between 84. Yu H, Chen X, Zhu W, Cao C. A quasi-experimental study of Chinese top-
critical power and different lactate threshold markers in recreational level speed skaters’ training load: Threshold versus polarized model. Int J
cyclists. Front Physiol 12: 676484, 2021. Sports Physiol Perform 7: 103–112, 2012.
13

effects_of_polarized_training_vs__other_trainning.636

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

effects_of_polarized_training_vs__other_trainning.636

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

effects_of_polarized_training_vs__other_trainning.636

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brief Review

Effects of Polarized Training vs. Other Training

Different-Level Endurance Athletes: A

Tomás Rivera-Köfler,1 Adrián Varela-Sanz,1 Alexis Padrón-Cabo,2 Manuel A. Giráldez-Garcı́a,1 and

Introduction [LT2], respectively) thresholds. In this regard, the gold standard

Methods Study Selection. From scientific databases, potential studies were

women) 30/ [0.81]† [0.48]†

athletes, 31 6 6 Tier 3: highly LIT 46/ 5 9.3 6 0.71 5 5 5 ↓

16/1 1.2 [0.45]† ↓

the baseline measures in a group of mountain bike cross-country

threshold, interval, and maximal intensity training efforts (66). Acknowledgments

You might also like