POLARIZED TRAINING REVISION AND ITS APPLICATIONS IN MODERN TRIATHLON COMPETITION

Transcription

1 POLARIZED TRAINING REVISION AND ITS APPLICATIONS IN MODERN TRIATHLON COMPETITION Vicent Beltrán Alcalá Tutored by: D. Florentino Huertas Olmedo Valencia Catholic University Saint Vincent Martyr

2 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 2

3 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 3 Contents 1. Abstract Introduction Polarized training revision and its application in modern triathlon competition Modern triathlon sport competition Physiological requirements for triathlon competition Maximal oxygen aerobic consumption Anaerobic threshold Ventilatory threshold Peak aerobic power output Maximal Aerobic Running Velocity Suriano & Bishop (2009) reviewed the data obtained from current researches about MAV values Running Economy Heart rate Brief history of training periodization Block periodization Choosing the right training model What is the current training model tendency used by elite athletes and coaches? Polarized training model Comparing polarized model with threshold model Polarized training, block periodization and its applications in modern triathlon Load quantification in triathlon Practical applications Polarized method key points Conclusions References... 41

4 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 4 Index of tables Table 1: VO 2max values for triathletes Table 2: Individual anaerobic threshold values for triathletes Table 3: Ventilatory threshold average values for triathletes Table 4: Peak aerobic output for triathletes Table 5: Maximal aerobic running velocity for triathletes Table 6: Training load distribution between different endurance sports Table 7: The distribution of training by type and intensity for the entire 37-weeks quantification perido (mid-october until end of June) Table 8: Training load distribution comparison among Junior rower and nonelite distance runners Table 9: Training distribution. Mean (SD) details of the total training time completed/wk for the polarized (POL) and threshold (THR) training models, the training load (intensity zone-duration, min), and the proportion of training time spent in zone I, zone II, and zone III Table 10: Training distribution between seasons 2004/2005 and 2005/ Table 11: Zones and zone scores leading to rough Objective Load Equivalent (ECOs) Table 12: Event rates and transition effect to quantify ECOs Table 13: Reference scale for Subjective Load Equivalents (ECSs)... 35

5 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 5 Index of figures Figure 1: Heart rate and serum lactate in a test simulating a sprint distance triathlon ( Km). From Berbalk, Pfützner & Neumann, (1997), cited in Tesis doctoral análisis de los factores de rendimiento del triatlón olímpico. Aplicación a los contenidos de la asignatura deportes individuales: TRIATLÓN, by R. Cejuela 2009, p Figure 2: Conceptual training intensity distributions associated with the threshold training model. From Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an optimal distribution? by Seiler & Kjerland, 2006, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 16, p Figure 3: Conceptual training intensity distributions associated with the threshold training model. From Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an optimal distribution? by Seiler & Kjerland, 2006, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 16, p Figure 4: The training intensity distribution in 318 training bouts, where heart rate records were complete and session RPE was recorded. From Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an optimal distribution? by Seiler & Kjerland, 2006, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 16, p

6 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 6 Index of abbreviations Aet: Aerobic threshold AnT: Anaerobic threshold Ant: Anaerobic threshold BP: Block periodization EC: Economy ECOs: Equivalentes de carga objetivos ECSs: Equivalentes de carga subjetivos HIT: High intensity training HR: Heart rate HRmax: Maximum heart rate ITU: International Triathlon Union Lac Cap: Lactic capacity Lac pow: Lactic power or glycolytic power LIT: Low intensity training MAP: Maximal aerobic power MAV: Maximal aerobic running velocity POL: Polarized method RCT: Respiratory compensation threshold THR: Threshold method ThT: Threshold training TM: Traditional model TP: Traditional periodization VO2max: Maximal oxygen uptake VT: Ventilatory threshold Wpeak: Peak aerobic power output

7 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 7

8 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 8 1. Abstract Since the ancient Rome and Greece, many essays and documents have shown examples of training periodisation. The sport development has followed the same path that the human being. From Greece to nowadays, the search of new techniques to allow the athletes to reach their peak performance has been the priority of coaches and physiologist. Coaches manipulate exercises intensities, duration, and frequency in order to obtain the best performance from their athletes. The nonexistence of the magical equation to give accurate information about the proper load applied to an athlete body, and the lack of exercises to provide the best physiological adaptations in athlete s body, increases coaches, researchers and practitioners concerns about the transfer of training. The relative impact of the different combinations between volume and intensity has been studied during years by coaches, researches and athletes. The results in these studies have shown many different patterns when distributing training load, two of them are anaerobic threshold training and polarized training. Some authors suggest that polarized training could be one of the best training strategies, especially when preparing events that requires contribution from both sources, aerobic and anaerobic. An optimal training intensity distribution should be one whereby the total training volume is performed approximately 75% at low intensity, and 15% at high intensity. It has also been suggested that polarized training is more effective when is applied on trained athletes. The modern triathlon competition structure presents a fully schedule where athletes are forced to compete every month or every fifteen days. Polarized training and block periodisation could be the best tool that coaches could use when preparing athlete s training season. The aim of this work is to make a revision about polarized training methodologies and the physiological adaptations caused by high-low intensity interval and resistance training on endurance sports and to present a proposal for triathlon training.

9 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 9 2. Introduction Sport Science has brought information through the years about the physiological adaptations associated with sport performance. The methodologies and loads that cause these adaptations seem to be well established. However, there is not a general agreement within the scientific community about the best training load and intensity distribution for the preparation of the athlete. The needs of the modern competition systems obligate the athlete to compete during many months. The season is long and is composed by many competitions. The issue remains in how the athletes should train to reach the peak performance at the key competitions, how the intensity should be distributed during their preparation and which intensity they should be training at dayto-day in order to take the maximum advantage of the physiological adaptations. Polarized training model and the physiological adaptations derived by its application in an athlete preparation seems to be the answer at this question. 3. Polarized training revision and its application in modern triathlon competition 3.1. Modern triathlon sport competition Triathlon is considered a young sport within the Olympic family of sports. The first evidence of a triathlon competition host in Spain date in 1963 and took place in Cantabria (Cejuela, 2009). It is widely assumed that the first official triathlon was host in San Diego, California on September 24, A few years later the first Ironman competition came in Honolulu, Hawaii. In 1989, the International Triathlon Union was constituted in Avignon, France, providing to the sport with a solid and official structure. Further on, in Sydney 2000, triathlon took part in the first Olympic event (Cejuela, 2009). In the latest years, the number of international competitions has increased very fast (International Triathlon Union, 2013). Nowadays, elite triathletes have to face different official competitions such ITU World Series, European cups, World cups, Continental Cups, National Championship and Olympic games, taking place once every four years (ITU, 2013) some of them holding both distances, sprint and Olympic, all in a tight calendar that goes from March to October. Due to this busy schedule in athletes life, their general aim is to achieve maximal peak performance at certain stage in the season based in their priorities (Seiler, 2010). As commented above this squeezed

10 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 10 calendar forces athletes and coaches to seek the new methodologies and strategies to achieve the best performance. Traditional periodization brings certain limitations when is applied to elite athletes and it makes impossible the full development of the athlete s potential (García, García, Sánchez, & Izquierdo, 2010; Issurin, 2008, 2010) receiving also a lot of criticism over the history (Koprivica, 2012). However, there is a lack of controlled studies comparing the impact of different periodization models in endurance performance during a completed season(esteve-lanao et al., 2007; Seiler, 2010; Kiely, 2010; Koprivica, 2012) There are also limitations detecting the training effects among athletes (Painter, et al., 2012). These limitations are due to different factors such as the impossibility to provide multiple performance peaks during the current season structure, the conflict of the physiological responses when mixed training is applied, excessive fatigue stored due to prolonged periods when multi-target training has been performed, the insufficient training stimulation produced by medium and low orientated training loads, the reduced rate of improvements after major initial performance gains, the contradictory training responses caused by the interaction between non-compatible training loads and the improvement of athletes level of fitness year in year out. In order to overcome these limitations coaches and researchers have developed new concepts of periodization (García et al., 2010; Issurin, 2010; Mujika; 2013) Physiological requirements for triathlon competition The work conducted by Suriano & Bishop (2009) suggested that those athletes willing to compete in triatlon at elite level would need to have similar physiological profiles to the elite swimmers, cyclists and runners. The information about the physiological and physical aspect to compete in triathlon, Olympic and long distance,has been widely reviewed in previous researches (Bentley, Millet, Vleck & McNaughton, 2002; Laursen, 2011; Millet, Vleck & Bentley, 2011; Suriano & Bishop, 2009) therefore this work will not go deeper into these aspects. Nonetheless, it is necessary to indicate the basic parameters and the key physiological aspects that are necessary to succeed in this sport. Triathlon is considered and endurance sport (Cejuela, 2009) that requires a manipulation and quantification of the training sessions intensity, volume and frequency (Laursen, 2010; Seiler & Tønnessen, 2009; Smith, 2003; Yu, Chen, Zhu, & Cao, 2012) in order to achieve peak performance and reduce the risk of negative training outcomes at a desired moment during the season (Seiler, 2010). It has

11 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 11 been mentioned that the evolution in the sport, especially, the area regarding training methodologies, has grown rapidly in the past. This has caused the need of new researches about it. There seems to be a consensus between the scientific community about the physiological variables that are important in triathlon performance. The physiological profile of an athlete can be identified evaluating these variables. The key for physiological parameters in triathlon would include maximal oxygen consumption (VO 2max ), anaerobic threshold, heart rate, economy (Millet, et al., 2011), ventilatory threshold, peak aerobic power output and maximal aerobic running velocity (Suriano & Bishop, 2009) Maximal oxygen aerobic consumption Maximal oxygen aerobic consumption has been proposed as one of the determinant parameters for endurance sports (Cejuela, 2009). High levels of maximal aerobic power, measured as VO 2max, have been associated with success in endurance athletes. Hence, elite triathletes tend to have high VO 2max values. Table 1 shows the information deduced from the review done by Suriano & Bishop (2009). Table 1 VO 2max values for triathletes Swimming Cycling Running Male (mlkg 1 min 1 ) 49.9 to to to 78.5 Female (mlkg 1 min 1 ) 38.1 to to to 65.6 Note. From Physiological attributes of triathletes by Suriano & Bishop, 2009, Journal of science and medicine in sport, p However, Ballesteros (1987) suggested that an athlete with a score below 50 mlkg 1 min 1 will not have options to succeed in elite triathlon. According to this author, it is necessary to have around mlkg 1 min 1 to be in the first positions at an international level.

12 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition Anaerobic threshold Despite having a high VO 2max values, it has been stated that the key parameter that makes a difference between athletes with similar physiological characteristics is the individual anaerobic threshold (Cejuela, 2009). It also varies between the three disciplines, being the scores for elite athletes. Table 2 Individual anaerobic threshold values for triathletes Swimming Cycling Running % VO 2max (mlkg 1 min 1 ) 72 to to to 72 Note. From Tesis doctoral análisis de los factores de rendimiento del triatlón olímpico. Aplicación a los contenidos de la asignatura deportes individuales: TRIATLÓN, by R. Cejuela 2009, p Ventilatory threshold When investigating sub maximal physiological values between triathletes, ventilatory data has priority over the lactate threshold data. Table 3 Ventilatory threshold average values for triathletes Swimming Cycling Running Male % of VO 2max (mlkg 1 min 1) to to 85 Female % of VO 2max (mlkg 1 min 1) 75.8 Note. From Physiological attributes of triathletes by Suriano & Bishop, 2009, Journal of science and medicine in sport, p There is controversy about differences found between the VT obtained in cycling and running. Some authors state the existence of differences between both and some others contradict this position. Differences are due to the type of methodology applied in the research and how the data has been collected (Millet et al., 2011).

13 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition Peak aerobic power output Peak aerobic power output has also been widely researched. The data collected from each study has made the comparison between them to be difficult. The reason is the use of different devices to perform the test and the population researched (Suriano & Bishop, 2009). Table 4 Peak aerobic power output for triathletes Discipline and category VO2 max Cycling Wpeak (W) Maximum value found in females Female Junior Elite 60.1± ±19 Minimum value found in females Female ultraendurance 57.5 ± ±39 Maximum value found in males Elite long distance specialists 72.3± ±47 Minimum value found in males Male ultraendurance 57.4 ± ±44 Note. From Physiological attributes of triathletes by Suriano & Bishop, 2009, Journal of science and medicine in sport, p Maximal Aerobic Running Velocity Suriano & Bishop (2009) reviewed the data obtained from current researches about MAV values. Table 5 Maximal aerobic running velocity for triathletes Discipline and category VO2 max running MAV h 1) Maximum value found in Female Young elites 56.1± ±0.7 females Minimum value found in Elite female 63.2± ±0.9 females Maximum value found in males Male Young elites 67.9± ±1.4 Minimum value found in males Elite male 71.8± ±0.7 (km Note. From Physiological attributes of triathletes by Suriano & Bishop, 2009, Journal of science and medicine in sport, p. 345.

14 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition Running Economy Economy has been studied in triathletes in two situations, isolated running and the running leg in a triathlon competition. There is not conclusive evidence about running economy parameters, therefore further investigations are needed (Millet et al., 2011) Heart rate It has been shown that heart rate does follow a gradual rising trend. The body position on swimming and the different muscular recruitment during the three disciplines in triathlon seems to be causing the factors of this rising behavior (Cejuela, 2009). Figure 1: Heart rate and serum lactate in a test simulating a sprint distance triathlon ( Km). From Berbalk, Pfützner & Neumann, (1997), cited in Tesis doctoral análisis de los factores de rendimiento del triatlón olímpico. Aplicación a los contenidos de la asignatura deportes individuales: TRIATLÓN, by R. Cejuela 2009, p83.

15 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition Brief history of training periodization During the ancient Greek and Rome numerous essays about sport science can be found. Many authors brought their knowledge into the science of training in the last decades (Issurin, 2010). From the Roman physician and philosopher Galen (Gardiner, 1930), the Greek scientist Philostratus and his essay Gymnasticus (Drees, 1968), moving forward the proposal in the former USSR until Matveyev, the periodization of training have been influenced by important changes (Issurin, 2010). Training periodization is defined by Vladimir Issurin (2010) as one of the most practically oriented branches of training theory. The first attempts to organize athlete s preparation and create training plans for them were conducted in Greek and Rome (Dress, 1968; Gardiner, 1930; Issurin, 2010). The general concept of periodization was conceptualized and based on the experience of the coaches and physiologist of the former USSR in 1960 s (García et al., 2010). Despite the fact that the traditional model (TM) of periodization has not changed much since the 60 s, the evolution of the sport, especially the sport science has contributed to an evolution within the sport (Issurin, 2010). Coaches and athletes have been concerned since long time ago about the best way of organizing the training load and stimuli in the periodization of the season and day-today training. The introduction of the Matveyev s traditional model of periodization for long-term athletes training has caused a big discussion within the scientific community. In a regular work out the TM develops simultaneously different fitness components such as aerobic capacity, maximal aerobic power, maximum strength (García et al., 2010) Block periodization The block periodization (BP) concept became popular in the early 80 s. It was a new method that high performance coaches adopted and appeared to be an option of the existent traditional method. The aim of this method was to overcome the limitations of the TP (García et al., 2010; Issurin, 2010; (Koprivica, 2012; Mujika, 2013). Several studies were carried out to compare both methods, one of them conducted by Garcia et al. (2010) with elite kayakers. This study showed a better sport success when applying BP in a training group comparing with other training groups that followed a traditional periodization (TP) or distinct periodization models (Painter, et al., 2012). The

16 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 16 implementation of BP seems to be effective not matter the type of sport that is applied to (Issurin, 2010). There was a large coincidence among the studies that chose BP as a method to be applied. Its features are the application of larges concentrated training loads targeting specialized number of capacities and abilities, there was a small number of training blocks, the blocks duration lasted from two to four weeks (García et al., 2010; Issurin, 2008; Issurin, 2010). This method has also received critics from some authors (Kiely, 2010; Koprivica, 2012). Vladimir Kopovrica refers in his article recently published, Block periodization - a breakthrough or a misconception, some limitations and contradictions to Issurin s work. The author points out the impossibility of performing more training blocks, in which only selected skills are developed, while the athlete is taking part in a large number of competitions during a prolonged season. Kopovrica defends the impossibility to maintain high performance level during the current season structure and calendar. According to Koprivica (2012), the concept of block periodization is not based in scientific facts and its application is not possible if an athlete wants to achieve a peak performance in a chosen competition. This idea is also supported by John Kiely (2012). Despite these critics, some authors strongly agree that block periodization is more effective than traditional periodization in high top elite levels and there are the same or more fitness gains in less time of training (García, 2010; Painter et al., 2012). Based on Seiler (2010), athlete s periodization can be distributed into short-term and long-term periodization. The author defines short term periodization as the manipulation of daily training variables over a few days and up to a few weeks and the long-term periodization as the manipulation of training into cycles lasting from weeks to several months. One of the latest researches done about the comparison between the effects of BP with the effect of TM has been developed by RØnnestad et al. (2012). The study compared the effect on indices of endurance performance in trained cyclists when both block periodization and traditional model were implemented. The two groups performed the same total load of low intensity training (LIT) and high intensity training (HIT). Apart from the type of periodization, the difference also resided in the distribution of LIT and HIT sessions. High intensity training distribution in BP consisted in one week of five HIT sessions followed by three weeks of one HIT session. Traditional model followed a different distribution; HIT sessions were performed twice every week. The study concluded claiming the superior effects of BP on VO2max, 40 min all-out trial,

17 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 17 lactate threshold and maximal power output indices when it was compared to the results obtained from the TM Choosing the right training model In an athlete s career choosing a wise and well defined periodization strategy is crucial, but the understanding of the physiological adaptations responses derived of the application of the different types of workouts seems to be more vital between coaches and researchers community (Esteve-Lanao et al., 2007; Laursen & Jenkins, 2002; Seiler, 2010; Yu et al., 2012). This topic has been a sport science professionals subject of debate since a long period of time (Esteve-Lanao, San Juan, Earnest, Foster, & Lucia, 2005; Smith, 2003). It is considered that there are crucial factors that must be determined in an elite athlete s preparation seeking to improve his performance and lower his risk of injury and overtraining (Yu et al., 2012). These factors are the intensity of training, how this intensity is distributed day-to-day and the physiological adaptations that athletes obtain from this distribution (Esteve-Lanao et al., 2007: Yu et al., 2012). There are a large amount of researches that have studied the physiological adaptations after the application of an endurance training program in previous sedentary and recreational athletes (Laursen & Jenkins, 2002; Seiler, 2010). However, there are very few studies showing the training adaptations in highly trained endurance athletes (Laursen & Jenkins, 2002). In 1986, Åstrand & Rodahl wondered about the kind of training that will lead in a greater physiological adatation in athletes whising to perform at 90% of maximal oxigen uptake during 40 min, or at 100% of the maximal oxigen uptake for about 16 min. New research suggests that high intensity training brings more benefits when applied to elite athletes (Seiler, 2010) and it is the only method that will provide the physiological adaptations required by this group (Laursen & Jenkins, 2002). Based on the existence of researches, two basic models of training can be mentioned; threshold training and the polarized training (Yu et al., 2012). On one hand, the workload distribution in threshold model corresponds to the zone between the first and second lactate, or ventilatory threshold (Yu et al., 2012). On the other hand, Laursen (2010) defines polarized training as an approach to training whereby 75% of the total training volume is performed at low intensity and 10-15% is performed at very high intensity distribution for elite athletes who perform intense exercises events.

18 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 18 Figure 2: Conceptual training intensity distributions associated with the threshold training model. From Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an optimal distribution? by Seiler & Kjerland, 2006, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 16, p. 50 Figure 3: Conceptual training intensity distributions associated with the threshold training model. From Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an optimal distribution? by Seiler & Kjerland, 2006, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 16, p What is the current training model tendency used by elite athletes and coaches? As it has been aforementioned, there is not a conclusive research that shows the best training model when preparing an elite athletes seasson. Therefore the key for coaches and athletes might be discovering the current training load performed during

19 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 19 training sessions and how this load is affecting athletes performance (Esteve-Lanao et al., 2005). In order to avoid misundestanding when refering to training zone, it is necessary to stablish the new terminology for them.the training zones can be extracted with two principal methods, blood lactate or pulmonary function gas exchange test. Both are performed increasing the exercise intensity (Neal, Hunter, & Galloway, 2011). There have been some studies that have examined the load distribution in athletes preparation, both in training or while performing multiday events through certain training zones. With the test results, studies used first and second ventilatory turn point to constitute the three training zones (zone I, zone II & zone III) (Esteve-Lanao et al. 2011; Laursen, 2010; Neal et al., 2013; Seiler, 2010). The training zones are described as follow: Zone I; Training intensity corresponding with the first ventilatory threshold. This training zone also matches the work performed at stable lactate concentration of less than aproximately 2mM blood lactate. Generaly used for LIT. Zone II; Training intensity between first and second ventilatory threshold. Region delimited by about 2 and 4mM blood lactate. Generaly used for threshold training (ThT) Zone III; Training intensity above the second ventilatory threshold. This training zone it is also equivalent to a lactate stady-state intensity is >4mM blood lactate. Generally used for HIT. A brief summary is presented in the table nº6 about researches that registered training load applied to diferent endurance sports and sprint sports. Those who implemented polarized method are highligthed.

20 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 20 Table 6 Training load distribution between different endurance sports. Research Sport/athletes Percentage of training load performed in each training zone Z I Z II Z III (Billat, Demarle, Slawinski, Paiva, & Koralsztein, 2001) Running (Seiler & Cross-contry Kjerland, 2006) skiing (Guellich, Seiler, Rowing Elite & Emrich, 2009) Runners Non-elite distance runners well trained (Neal, et al., 2013) Cycling Polarized Method Threshold Method (Yu, Chen, Zhu, & Cao, 2012) Skating Threshold Method Male Female 43,2 39,7 53,6 56,3 4,2 4,2 Season 04/05 Polarized Method Season 05/06 Male 83, Female 82 5,3 12,7 (Esteve-Lanao, Seiler, Foster, & Lucia, 2007) (Schumacher & Mueller, 2002) (Fiskerstrand & Seiler, 2004) (Esteve-Lanao, San Juan, Earnest, Foster, & Lucia, 2005) (Zapico, et al., 2007) (Hartmann, Mader, & Hollmann, 1990) (Rodríguez- Marroyo, García, Juneau, & Villa, 2009) Runners Group Group Cycling track Out of track 94 2 competition or stage racing Rowing Time in h week 70 s Time in h week 80 s Time in h week 90 s Running Cycling Winter ,4 Spring Rowing Preparation period 90 7 Precompetition period 73,5 18 Cycling competition

21 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 21 (García, García, Sánchez, & Izquierdo, 2010) (Esteve-Lanao, Cejuela, & Muñoz-Pérez, 2011) (Neal, Hunter, & Galloway, 2011) (Schumacher & Mueller, 2002) (Sandbakk, Holmberg, Leirdal, & Ett, 2011) Kayak Triathlon (ironman) Triathlon (ironman) Training load change from de begining of the season from; 45 to to 26 Training Competing Period A Period B Period C Cycling track Out of track competition or stage racing Cross-contry skiing World class athlete 76,4 6,5 4,4 National class athlete 73 4,4 5,6 The data coming from the previous summary shows that most of the ahtletes spent the major part of their training time in zone 1, while the load distribution between zone 2 and zone 3 varies according to the research carried out. Moreover, highlighted researches show a clear example of polarized training theory when applied to a group of athletes Polarized training model Polarized training model (POL) is defined as a method of training where 75% of the total training volume is performed at low intensities, above the first veltilatory threshold or near a stable lactate concentration of less than 2mM. The 10-15% is performed at very high intensity distribution, above maximum lactate steady-state intensity (>4mM blood lactate) or the second ventilatory threshold (Esteve-Lanao et al., 2007; Laursen, 2010; Seiler, 2010). Coaches and athletes seek new strategies and methodologies to alter the physiological systems in a manner that physical work is enhanced (Laursen, 2010). The latest research findings shows that highly elite athletes and worldclass athletes who took part of cycling, rowing, cross-country skiing, running or triatlhon competitions performed roughly 75% of the total training load in intensities below the lactate threshold despite competing to higher intensities (Esteve-Lanao et al., 2007).

22 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 22 Low intensity training is directly linked with positive physiological adaptations that enhance an athlete s performance. A research conducted by Neal et al. (2011) with ten triatheltes, suggested that training at an intensity below the first ventilatory threshold is beneficial for physiological adaptation and subsequent exercise performance. Seiler et al. (2007) found a rapid recovery in heart rate variability in a group of nine highly trained runners that spent 75% of the total training load in zone I after performing HIT. Training low under zone I causes minimal disturbance in autonomic neural system in highly trained runners. Another example of the benefits of training low can be found in a research done with cyclist by Zapico et al. (2007). The cyclist group performed 77% of the total training in zone I. The research findings showed improvements in both ventilatory thresholds. Coyle, Coggan, Hopper, & Walters (1988) presented a research with fourteen well-trained and competitive cyclist who demonstrated an enhancement in high muscular power outpout for long duration when they trained at a low intensity. Esteve-Lanao et al., (2005) lead an study with eight well-trained subelite endurance runners. He showed a strong correlation between the time spent in zone I and the performance enhancenment during highly intensity events as 4km and 10 km run. The effect of two training programs in a group of endurance runners was compared in a different research a few years later by the same author Esteve-Lanao et al. (2007). The training program s diference resided in the distribution of the volumen. The load applied in the group 1 followed the principles of polarized training. This group had a major volumen of the training load distributed below zone I whereas group 2 had major volumen of training load distribution in zone II and zone III, within lactate threshold and maximal lactate steady state region. The study conclusions show that the group that trained more time below the zone I got greater improvements in their running performance than the group that trainied in zone II an zone III. Some researches have been done in the sport of rowing in the latest years.

23 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 23 Fiskerstrand & Seiler (2004) focused their study in the Norwegian rowers champions who won international medals from the year 1970 to The study aim was to quantify their training volumes and to find out the change suffered over the years in the distribution load. One of the changes observed, was a redistribution in daily training intensity. Rowers went from working at different training zones intensities to work at intensites below the zone I.The research findings also showed an increase in the perfomance of long distances volume. The study results show that rowers improved about 12% their VO2max. During the realization of six minutes Gjessing ergometer test, rowers improved about 10% their power average. A different study with eighteen rowers was done by Ingham, Carter, Whyte, & Doust (2008). They shows the benefits of low intensity training. They divided the main group in two and they took part of a twelve weeks program. The group 1 performed 100% of training intensity below zone I. The group 2 performed 30% of the total training intensity above zone I or lactate threshold and the remaining 70% below zone I. The study findings display that both groups improved their performance and their VO2max peaks.the group 1 also improved their speed at lactate threshold to a greater extent than group 2 did. It could seem that training at a low intensity is one of the best methods to develop athetes carrer. However, Esteve-Lanao et al. (2005) showed a reduction in the activity of the sympathetic nervous system in athletes after severe and prolonged low intensity training including competitions. The decrease of this activity caused a hormonal exhaustion syndrome. In order to avoid this, it seems to be appropiated to introduce some high intensity exercise within the athletes weekly routine (Laursen, 2010). A two years research done with a chinese top-level speed skaters by Yu et al. (2012) compared the training results and the physiological benefits of two different training models, threshold and polarized training. During the first year, the athletes implemented threshold model and second year polarized method was chosen to develop their performance. Both, men and women enhanced their performance more when polarized method was implemented. There was a greater improvement in both groups(2% to 4%) in the 500-m and 1000-m events when they trained polarized. In addition to these results, both registered lower blood lactate concentration after 15-min postcompetition (aprox 2,8%) and 30 min postcompetition (1,8%), and their maximal

24 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 24 oxigen uptake and maximal power output were also enhanced (2,4% aprox). This findings can suggest that adding some HIT when training low, as the polarized model recomends, can bring positive physiological adaptations in both, endurance and sprint athletes. It has to be remembered that when a polarized method is implemented, the remaing 10 to 15% of total 25% is performed at high intensity (Laursen, 2010). In 2004, Paton & Hopkins reviewed 22 of the most relevants studies about highintensity training. They gathered all the results from all works and concluded that there were some gaps in the knowledge regarding high-intensity training and how it should be applied in endurance training. Almost 10 years have passed and some of the gaps have been filled by the new researches. New findings suggested that incorporating HIT into a short-term interval program brings more central adaptations than continuos exercises at lower intensity. However, the outcome of HIT long-term training of endurance athletes still remains unclear (Seiler, 2010). The physiologist Paul Laursen (2010) supports that there is an enhancement in the development of the aerobic muscle phenotype when both methods are combined. According to the research review done by Laursen (2010), the inclusion of six to eight sessions to a group of well-trained cyclist performing at an intensity of % of VO2max during 2 to 4 weeks, brought significat influence of 2-4% on peak power output, time-to-fatigue at 150% of peak performance and 40km time trial. A research done with highly trained cyclist by Weston et al., (1997) concluded that there existed positive physiologicals adaptations in the cyclists performance after the addition of six high intensity interval training during 3 weeks. Cyclists experimented a significant performance enhancement when doing intense exercises (<60min) and during their 40 km time trial performance. Helgerud et al. (2007) compared the physiological effects of the implementation of aerobic endurance training with different training intensities and different training methods applied. The forty subjects that took part in the study were a group of non-elite athletes were assigned randomly to one of the 4 existing groups. They were training 3

25 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 25 days a week for a period of 8 weeks. One group of athletes performed 4x4 minutes of interval running at 90-95% maximun heart rate (HRmax) followed by an active resting at 70% HRmax. Second group performed 15 seconds of running at 90-95% HRmax with 15 seconds of an active rest at 70% HRmax. Third group performed lactate threshold exercises at 85% HRmax and the forth group performed long slow distance at 70% of HRmax. All the groups followed the same total training load. The study showed that the group that followed high aerobic interval exercises had a better improvement of the VO2max than long slow distance training and lactate threshold groups. Moreover, improvements in the lactate threshold velocity were also found. The study presents some practical limitations specially with the 15/15 group. Difficulties appeared when controlling the 90-95% HRmax intensity with the heart rate monitor. These difficulties are believed to be caused by the lag response of the heart rate (Seiler, 2010). Another study compared the effects of 3km and 5km running performances in a group of 27 well-trained runners after the follow up of two high intensity interval training programs. Runs were performed in a treadmill twice during 4-week. The study concluded with an improvement in 3km running performance (Smith, Coombes, & Geraghty, 2003). The effects on muscle oxidative capacity, capillarization and energy expenditure of a group of seventeen endurance-trained runners were study by Iaia et al. (2009). They split the group in two (Set; n=9 and Control n=8). Set group changed the training plan during the 4weeks intervention period and went from running 45 km/week to 15 km/week at a low intensity. They also added some speed endurance training (8-12x30 sprint) from three to five times/week. The control group kept running 45km/week at a low intensity. The outcomes of the study were; both groups maintained their 10 km run performance, VO2max uptake for 10 km performance time and the skeletal muscle oxidative enzyme activities and capilarization. Set group increased their performance in 30 seconds sprint (+7%), Yoyo intermitent recovery test results (+19%) and supramaximal running test results (+19-27%). The energy expenditure when performing submaximal exercises was also reduced. Some results of this study matched with the conclusions in Laursen and Jenkins (2002) study. High intensity interval training does not change oxidative or glycolitic enzyme activity, despite the significant improvements

26 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 26 in endurance performance. This author proposes that there is an augment in the skeletal muscle capacity when HIT is implemented and that could be the answer to increase endurance performance. Although there are studies that showed polarized training intensities distributions in athletes preparation, just a few of them have gone further to research about the physiological adaptations produced by its application. Billat et al. (2001) studied the physical and training charasteristics of 21 top-clas and high-level runners athletes that belonged to Portugal and France national teams. Load training distribution pattern followed polarized method principles. The study result does not show any physiological comparasion between different stages of training or between different training models, but suggests that this training approach can induce positive physiological adaptations at both levels, central and peripheral. They also concluded that polarized load distribution may minimize the risk of overtraining. Another descriptive study was conducted by Guellich, Seiler, & Emrich (2009). They investigated a group of 36 successful junior rowers. The main purpose of the study was to identify the type of exercises and load distribution between the athletes group and its relation to later senior success. The method applied to quantify the training load followed the same time-in zone, three intensities (zone I, II and III) that the others studies previously presented. Table 7 The distribution of training by type and intensity for the entire 37-weeks quantification period (mid-october until end of June) Distribution Mean (SD) All training Frecuency (sessions-wk-1-1 ) 10.9 (1.6) Time (h.wk -1 ) 12.8 (2.1) Rowing training (%) 52.1 (5.1) Resistance training (%) 22.6 (4.3) Alternative training (%) 17.2 (5.2) Warm-up and flexibility (%) 8.1 (4.3) Rowing exercise

27 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 27 Time (h.wk -1 ) 6.6 (0.8) Distance (km.wk -1 ) 97.1 (19.5) Compensation range (%) 8.1 (6.1) Extensive endurance range (%) 86.8 (6.3) Intensive endurance range (%) 2.0 (1.1) Highly intensive endurance range (%) 1.0 (0.4) Race-specific velocity-endurance range (%) 1.7 (0.6) Velocity range (%) 0.4 (0.5) Note. From Training methods and intensity distribution of young world-class rowers by Guellich, Seiler, & Emrich, 2009, International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, p.453. The researchers applied the same load quantification method to a group of welltrained non elite distance runners. Even though sport disciplines were not the same, the study findings showed in table nº 8 some results. Table 8 Training load distribution comparision among Junior rowers and nonelite distance runners Atheletes Junior rowers (%) Nonelite distance runners (%) Zone I Zone II 2 21 Zone III 3 8 Note. From Training methods and intensity distribution of young world-class rowers by Guellich, Seiler, & Emrich, 2009, International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, p.455. Fifteen of the subjects that took part of the research became junior wold champions during the season when training data was collected.this took researchers to think that there are possible mechanism associated with the benefits of this specific load distribution. They just speculated with the results since they had not any conclusive evidences to provide. Seiler & Kjerland (2006) conducted a similar research with a group of eleven well-trained junior cross-country skiers. Three training intensities quantification methods were compared.,

28 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 28 Figure 4: The training intensity distribution in 318 training bouts, where heart rate records were complete and session RPE was recorded. From Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an optimal distribution? by Seiler & Kjerland, 2006, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 16, p. 53 Despite the fact that they did not go deep in the physiologycal outcomes derived from this intensity distribution, they stated that there are similarities found in their study results with others authors about the benefits of training polarized. It can be seen that little amount of training load is performed in the zone II (Figure 5). To the best of my knowledge, there is only one research that compared the physiological outcomes in the same group of athletes. Two different training methods were applied. This research was made by Neal et al (2013). The results and the study itself is very joung so it can be considered as one of the last updatings. Twelve male cyclist undertook 2 periods of training,6 weeks each, using polarized method and threshold method (THR). Both training periods were separately by 4 weeks of detraining. Different physiologycal parameters were evaluated; the mithocondrial enzyme activity, monocarboxylate transporter 1 and 4, the endurance performance tests such as 40-km time trial, incremental exercises, peak power output, and high-intensity exercises capacity performed at 95% maximal work rate to exaustion.

29 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 29 Table 9 Training distribution. Mean (SD) details of the total training time completed / wk for the polarized (POL) and threshold (THR) training models, the training load (intensity zone-duration, min), and the proportion of training time spent in zone I, zone II, and zone III. Units POL THR Total training time Min/wk 381 (±85) 458 (±120)* Training load Intensity zone x 517 (±90) 633 (±119)* duration Zone I % of training time 80 (±4) 57 (±10)* Zone II % of training time 0 (±0) 43 (±10)* Zone III % of training time 20 (±4) 0 (±0)* * Difference between POL and THR (P <0.05) Note. From Six weeks of a polarized training-intensity distribution leads to greater physiological and performance adaptations than a threshold model in trained cyclists by Neal, et al., 2013, Journal of Applied Physiology, p.464. The conclusions showed that there was an improvement using both methods, POL and THR, in endurance performance, peak power output, lactate threshold, monocarboxilyte 4 and high-intensity. This improvement appeared to be bigger when polarized method was applied despite having the same training load Comparing polarized model with threshold model The effectiveness of Polarized training has been proved when implemented in endurance sports (Billat et al., 2001; Esteve-Lanao et al., 2007; Neal et al., 2013) it is not easy to say that it has also been effective in sprint sports, since the researches were not conducted in the same manner (Yu et al., 2012). Billat et al. (2001) did a research with a group of top elite marathon runners. The study s purpose was to compare the physical and training characteristics of this group. They found out that the elite marathon runners expended the major part of their training, running at velocities above or below their normal marathon speed. This finding contradict the idea that marathon runners need large millage of training to be performed at lactate threshold intensity.

30 Polarized training revision and its applications in modern triathlon competition 30 Anoher research done with runners and conducted by Esteve-Lanao et al. (2007) compared the effect of two different training programs applied in twelve sub elite runners. Both programes differed in the relative contribution of training intensity but the total training load was the same for both. The runners were split into two groups. One of them, performed the major percentaje of the total training volume in zone 1 (lowintensity exercise performed below the first ventilatory threshold (VT). The other one, trained a higher percentage in zone 2 (moderately high-intensity exercise in an intensity range between the VT and the respiratory compensation threshold (RCT) and both trained similar volumes percentages in zone 3 (high-intensity aerobic exercise performed above the RCT). After 5 month of training they concluded that athletes who spent more time in zone 1 experiment an enhancement in their performance rather than those who used doble of the time around the lactate threshold intensity. In 2012, a research with Chinese sprint skaters was conducted by Yu et al. The main objective of the research was to compare the effectiveness of the two models of training mentioned in the training of sprint skaters. The study lasted for two years. Researchers believed that threshold model was been used with the athletes.the first year was used to monitor the training load and identify if the model was being applied or not. The second year was an introduction of polarized model after confirming what they hipothesized about the training threshold model. The conclusions of the research showed that polarized training model elicited significant performance improvements on an average of 2% to 4% from to among the athletes. Table 10 Training distribution between seasons 2004/05 and 2005/06 Intensity-Distribution Zone, % Duration, min Low Moderate High Male ± ± ± ± 11.9 % distribution 100% 43.2 ± ± ± ± ± ± 9.9 ** 87.5 ± 9.1** ** 100% 83.4 ± ± ± 1.1 Female ± ± ± ± 8.6