Pyramidal or Polarized Training: Which is Best? (#378)

Training intensity and its distribution throughout the training year is a hot topic. In recent years, several studies have highlighted the benefits of a more polarized intensity distribution. This approach means the majority of training is done in a relaxed zone 1, with a small but crucial portion in higher intensity zones—something many seasoned athletes and coaches have long known if you review training logs (source, source).

Despite evidence for polarized training, it's not the only way to achieve results, nor is it always the most effective. Likely, several parameters play a role in choosing intensity distribution in a training plan (Source).

This brings us to the sweet-spot versus high-intensity work discussion. When and in which zones should you spend most of your time? Training with more zone 2 work, or “middle intensity training,” falls under pyramidal training, whereas planning with more zone 3 instead of zone 2 is classified as polarized training. 

In summary, research indicates that both pyramidal and polarized training are effective ways to develop endurance, as long as the foundation consists of a large amount of low-intensity training. Which model yields the best results likely depends on the sport, training level, training phase, and the individual's physiology. For most endurance athletes, the crucial question is not whether the training should be pyramidal or polarized, but ensuring the intensity is periodized thoughtfully and tailored to the goal of the training period.

Polarized training is often described as "when it's hard, it's really hard, and when it's easy, it's truly easy." The intensity is usually allocated as about 80% zone 1, 5% zone 2, and 15% zone 3. These zones are based on Skinner and MacLellan's training intensity distribution, where intensity is categorized into three broad zones:

• Zone 1 is up to VT1 (a pace where you can easily converse).
• Zone 2 is between VT1 and VT2 (breathless — up to your threshold).
• Zone 3 encompasses everything above VT2, which corresponds to OBLA or the lactic acid threshold — often noted as FTP for cyclists.

In summary: lots of easy effort with a few but challenging bursts of high-intensity work.

Let's delve deeper into two studies that explored these intensity setups with varied focuses and plans.

First up: Polarized and Pyramidal Training Intensity Distribution: Relationship with a Half-Ironman Distance Triathlon Competition (2019).

In this study, recreational triathletes preparing for a Half Ironman (70.3) were monitored. The question: which intensity distribution suits them best?

The participants included 18 male triathletes, 13 of whom completed the entire assessment period. They had a VO2max of approximately 55 ml/kg/min, had been training for triathlons for at least a couple of years, and aimed to prepare for Ironman 70.3. All followed the same periodization and training volume and were coached by the same trainer over the 20-week study, which included 13 weeks of a specific training plan where half the group engaged in polarized training and the other half in pyramidal training.

The intensity distribution was:

• “polarized”: 84.4% / 4.3% / 11.2% (zone 1–3)
• “pyramidal”: 77.9% / 18.8% / 3.3% (zone 1–3)

The figure below illustrates the structure of the experimental period.

Both groups showed significant improvements across almost all parameters. There was no significant difference in training load and volume between the groups. Meal timing had no significant effect on the half Ironman distance between POL and PYR. The only significant difference was that PYR saw a strong improvement in speed at VT2 and in MAS (maximal aerobic speed), which was not observed for POL. Keep in mind, though, that the study's small participant size limits the strength of these conclusions.

In summary: previous research supports polarized training for performance enhancement. However, this study suggests for recreational athletes, the balance between zone 2 and zone 3 is less critical, provided there's a solid foundation in zone 1. A pyramidal approach with more training near the threshold might be advantageous if competing at distances where you're often near threshold speed.

Next study: Effects of 16 weeks of pyramidal and polarized training intensity distributions in well-trained endurance runners (2021).

This study focused on more well-trained athletes — and the more trained the body, the more crucial the details of the training become. What did they find?

The study involved 60 well-trained male runners (average age 38 years, VO2max ≈ 67 ml/kg/min). All ran at least five sessions per week and competed regularly. The runners were divided into four groups with different Training Intensity Distributions (TID). The training period lasted 16 weeks, split into two 8-week blocks. The groups were matched for age, VO2max, and personal bests over 5 km. Participants knew their program but not the study's actual purpose.

The breakdown was: one pure POL group, one pure PYR group, and two groups that switched between POL and PYR between blocks (POL→PYR and PYR→POL). This approach was used to explore more than just two TIDs.

All participants underwent a uniform 6-week training intervention before starting the 16-week period. The training focused exclusively on running. Each 8-week mesocycle followed a 3+1 microcycle periodization: three weeks of increased load followed by a recovery week with approximately 30-40% reduced load, repeated twice. For those interested in the full details, there's a table of the entire training program, link.

Physiological pre-tests indicated no significant differences between the groups. The training load during the intervention was consistent across all groups. Results revealed significant improvements across all four groups in relative VO2peak (p < 0.0001), vBLa2 (p < 0.0001), vBLa4 (p < 0.0001), and the 5-km time trial (p = 0.0001).

The highlight was the PYR → POL group, showing the greatest enhancements in these four metrics: approximately ~3.0% for relative VO2peak, ~1.7% for vBLa2, ~1.5% for vBLa4, and ~1.5% for the 5-km time trial. Compared to other groups, improvements were around 0.5% for the latter measures. These percentages seem small but can be crucial, like the margin between winning an Olympic qualifying heat or not.

In conclusion, the study demonstrates that beginning with pyramidal training followed by polarized training is highly effective for well-trained runners. Significant improvements in vBLa2 and vBLa4 suggest better running efficiency in higher intensity zones. The PYR → POL approach, mimicking a peak period, might explain why this strategy excelled in the results. Researchers also hypothesized that more rest during the final 2-3 weeks could have further enhanced performance.

These two studies don't present groundbreaking discoveries—however, they reaffirm an important message: a training intensity distribution where at least 80% of training is in zone 1 is nearly always a fundamental requirement for endurance sports with performance goals. Beyond that, intensity distribution isn't cut and dry. High intensity is necessary, but how much and how it's allocated likely depend on the nature of the sport, training period, athlete's level, and genetic predispositions.

My brief, coach-like advice: build your foundation with steady volume, don't shy away from incorporating both solid threshold/sweet-spot training when your competition profile demands it, and include very high-intensity blocks when you want to boost your top speed. Test, follow up, and adapt—and don't forget to rest wisely in the final block if you're aiming for peak performance.