Research · Training ·
Polarised vs threshold training, what a 9-week study found
How you split your training between easy and hard sessions matters. This study compared four common approaches over nine weeks.
What they did
Athletes were randomly put into one of four groups, with intensity controlled by heart rate:
- High volume: lots of low-intensity training
- Threshold: a focus on moderate "comfortably hard" efforts
- HIIT: a focus on high-intensity intervals
- Polarised: mostly low intensity, plus some high-intensity intervals, with little time in between
All athletes had previously trained mostly at high volume, with no more than two threshold sessions a week.
What they found
- Polarised training gave the biggest improvements: VO2peak up 11.7%, time to exhaustion up 17.4%, and peak speed or power up 5.1%.
- Speed or power at a blood lactate of 4 mmol/L improved with both polarised (+8.1%) and HIIT (+5.6%) training.
- Threshold and high-volume training didn't improve the key performance measures.
- Changes in running economy did not differ between groups.
What it means for ultra runners
For athletes already doing plenty of easy volume, adding more of the same, or more threshold work, may not move fitness on. Keeping most running genuinely easy and adding a small amount of hard interval work was the most effective approach here.
Limitations
- The athletes weren't ultra runners, and the study ran for only nine weeks.
- It measured lab fitness markers, not race results.
- 48 athletes split across four groups means each group was small.
This is a summary for information only, not medical or dietary advice. Read the original study for full details.