HOW TO SLICE THE PIE? RETHINKING POLARISED TRAINING

To train effectively you need to include both high- and low-intensity rides. But has the 80/20 model had its day? Reigning national hill-climb champion Tom Bellinvestigates

- Tom Bellinvestigates

Over the past decade, it became widely accepted that polarised training is the best formula for endurance O cyclists. According to this model, training is divided between intensities at polar opposite ends of the spectrum: very easy and very hard, in a roughly 80/20 split.

Recently, however, polarised training has become the subject of heated debate mong sports scientists who disagree over what constitutes the optimum intensity distribution. Some researchers have begun arguing against conventional polarisation, instead favouring schedules that incorporate more middle-intensity riding. The debate raises the question of whether we need to rethink - or at least think more carefully about how we define and implement polarised training.

In polarised training as conventionally conceived, the majority (75-80%) of training is conducted at a low intensity that feels easy. The remaining time is spent at a high intensity, while middle-intensity training, often referred to as Zone 3, tempo, sweet spot, or threshold (an effort level that could be described as 'comfortably hard') is largely shunned.

A polarised approach to intensity distribution sounds simple enough: keep your training mostly easy while including a sprinkling of high-intensity sessions. However, defining what we mean by polarised training can actually be quite tricky. This question of definitions was the crux of the recent debate, which highlighted the importance of making sure we're clear on the terms we're using. In this feature, we'll tackle the subtleties of polarised training, the common pitfalls encountered, and how to get the most out of this popular training approach.

The case for polarised training