Pyramidal and polarized training are two different approaches to structuring an athlete's training routine, commonly used in endurance sports like running, cycling, or swimming. Both systems are designed to optimize performance by balancing intensity and volume in different ways, with the goal of maximizing training adaptations while minimizing the risk of injury and overtraining. However, they differ fundamentally in how they distribute training intensity.
Pyramidal training, also known as traditional or threshold training, involves spending the majority of time at low intensities, with progressively less time spent at moderate and high intensities. It's named so because when you plot the time spent at each intensity level, it forms a pyramid, with a broad base of low-intensity work and a narrow peak of high-intensity work.
Polarized training involves spending a significant amount of time at low intensities, little to no time at moderate intensities, and a smaller, but significant amount of time at high intensities. When plotted, the time spent at each intensity level forms a "U" or "V" shape, hence the name "polarized."
Pyramidal training is rooted in the long-standing tradition in endurance sports, where a large volume of relatively easy training is supplemented with a smaller amount of harder work. The philosophy is that the low-intensity work builds aerobic fitness, while the harder sessions develop race-specific fitness. This approach has proven successful for many athletes and is often recommended for beginners because it allows for a gradual increase in training load, thereby reducing the risk of injury.
However, some researchers and coaches have noted that pyramidal training may not be the most effective approach for all athletes. They argue that spending too much time at moderate intensities – often near the so-called lactate threshold – can lead to excessive fatigue and may not yield the same training benefits as spending more time at either lower or higher intensities.
Pros:
- It allows for higher training volumes without extreme fatigue or injury risk.
- It's ideal for building a strong aerobic base.
Cons:
- It may not adequately prepare an athlete for high-intensity segments of a race.
- There is a risk of overtraining if high volumes aren't managed carefully.
Polarized training, proposed by sports scientist Stephen Seiler, aims to address these potential shortcomings. The polarized model posits that spending most of the time at low intensities allows for the development of aerobic fitness without excessive fatigue, while the high-intensity sessions provide stimulus for further physiological adaptations.
By avoiding moderate intensities, polarized training aims to reduce the risk of overtraining while maximising training adaptations. Indeed, several studies have shown that polarized training can lead to greater improvements in performance and physiological markers than traditional pyramidal training.
Polarized training is not without its challenges. It requires careful monitoring to ensure that the high-intensity sessions are performed at the appropriate level and that the athlete recovers adequately between sessions. Furthermore, it may not be suitable for all athletes, especially beginners who may not be accustomed to high-intensity training.
Pros:
- It allows for recovery during low-intensity workouts while still benefiting from high-intensity workouts.
- It often leads to improvements in both high-intensity performance and overall endurance.
Cons:
- It requires disciplined training to avoid drifting into the middle zone.
- The high-intensity sessions can be physically and mentally challenging.
Both pyramidal and polarized training can be effective for improving endurance performance, they differ fundamentally in how you distribute training intensity. Pyramidal training, with its focus on gradual progression and a balance of intensity levels, may be most suitable for beginner athletes or those seeking to improve general fitness.
Meanwhile, polarized training, with its emphasis on maximising training adaptations by focusing on low and high intensities, may be more suitable for experienced athletes looking to optimise their performance. The choice between the two should be individualised, considering the athlete's experience, goals, and response to training.
