1

‘Optimising High Volume and High Intensity Training: Research Evidence and Strategic

choices.

Dr Gordon Wright Ph.D ABCC level 4 Endurance Coach

Nicole Cooke

Published in the ‘Journal of Cycle Coaching’, Dec 2010

Sue Clarke – British Mountain Bike Champion 2009 and GB Team member World

MTB Championships Australia 2009

Stuart Dangerfield Athens Olympian GB Team Competitor at four World Championships and Team England at four Commonwealth Games

Nicole Cooke Beijing OlympicsRoad Race Gold medallist

2

Author Biography: Dr Gordon Wright MBA PhD MRSC CChem CSci Level 4 Coach of the Association of British Cycling Coaches and British Cycling Coach.

Gordon Wright has coached cyclists for nearly 40 years and including Stuart Dangerfield during three Commonwealth Games, four World Championships and the Athens Olympics. And in 2007 and 2008 Gordon worked with Nicole Cooke in her Beijing Olympic Games campaign. And he coached Sue Clarke when she won the GB Women’s 2009 Mountain Bike Championship and competed in the Australian World MTB Championships. He was a GB accredited coach at the World Championships in Valkenburgh in 1998 and the Athens Olympic training camp in Cyprus in 2004. He has coached numerous local riders, including in 1980 schoolboy Peter Keen who won the GHS National 10 mile Championship in a record time. Peter went on to study sports science and ultimately became British Cycling’s first World Class Performance Director. Gordon has published a number of papers including this one in the Journal of Cycle Coaching.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The available evidence suggests that combining large volumes of low intensity trainingwith careful use of high-intensity interval training throughout the annual training cycle is the best practise model for the development of endurance performance”

Professor Stephen Seiler 2009, Internationally recognised coach and sports scientist, Adger University Norway.

Introduction :

This paper outlines how combining low intensity high volume training (HVT) with short duration high intensity training (HIT) in proportions of 75% to 80% of volume at low intensity and 10% to 15 % of volume at high intensity with any balance in between is a very successful formula leading to superior endurance performance for elite level sports participants. The evidence comes from two main sources. One is from extensive empirical observations of the endurance training practise of elite performers. And the other comes from detailed scientific research into the bio-molecular responses and adaptations to exercise. Stephen Seiler and colleagues have undertaken a ten year empirical study of the training practises of elite and professional athletes in endurance sports such as cross country skiing, running, rowing, and professional cycling (Seiler, S. and Tonnessen, E., 2009).

They observed the use of a common distribution of training volumes in the above proportions which Seiler calls the ‘Polarised Approach’ to training. Such athletes polarise their training towards high volume low intensity training at one end of the intensity spectrum, with very high intensity training at the other. Their extensive study showed only a small proportion of training was undertaken in the middle intensity range and often almost none at all at race pace! So in cycling terms the Polarised distribution, combining the old school practise of ‘getting the miles in’, but crucially combined with more modern structured approaches to high intensity training.

In parallel with Seiler’s work and over a similar time scale molecular biologists have been painstakingly and slowly unravelling the very complex inter-cell signalling processes that take place inside muscles and other key organs as they respond to different training modes and intensities. A protein called PGC-1alpha has been identified as a key mediator in cell signalling processes leading to significant improvements in aerobic capacity. It has been named the ‘master switch’ by Professor Paul Laursen, an Australian professor of sports science who has summarised much of this work (Laursen, P. 2010). When PGC-1alpha is activated or ‘switched on’ it plays a central role in the biogenesis of muscle cell

3

mitochondria which are the energy powerhouses in muscle fibres. It is well known that increasing the number and size of mitochondria leads to improved aerobic capacity and therefore improved endurance performance. Furthermore it has been found that an increase in PGC-1alpha can be achieved by both long duration low intensity training, and by very high intensity training. But remarkably, by completely different cell signalling mechanisms that ultimately converge to the same end result that is the development of aerobic capacity via the master switch PGC-1alpha. One pathway results from low intensity training applied over extended periods of time. The other pathway results from repeated doses of short duration high intensity training.

So in practical terms we can see from both Seiler’s empirical observations and the cell signalling research that the ‘old school’ approach of ‘getting the miles in’ and the more modern high intensity school of thinking are both correct in their view of what leads to improved aerobic performance. An exciting outcome from both the empirical observations of world class performers and the bio-molecular research is the fact that the right combination of HVT and HIT is even more potent in the development of aerobic performance capacity than from the contribution of the individual approaches. The outcomes of this research highlight the important strategic choices that need to be made when shaping the overall structure of endurance training programmes of aspiring and motivated performers. So currently the evidence is strongly in favour of a Polarised distribution of endurance training.

The endurance training challenge

As coaches we are well aware of the need to find the right balance between training volume and training intensity if our riders are to achieve their best in endurance competition. Without going into the specific training needs of particular events the generic questions coaches need to resolve are: how much training volume is required and over what period of time, and how should training effort be distributed and sequenced between duration and intensity. In truth the questions and combinations are endless. Coaches and informed riders through their own accumulated experience will find training formulas and strategies that suit them, but the outcomes may not always be the best. And when winning combinations are found they are often kept secret. Despite all the public money pouring into British Cycling to significantly help their medal winning successes of recent years, very little information comes out into the public domain as quite understandably they want to keep their medal winning edge.

Along with coaching colleagues back through the years I have many times pondered on the big training question of the merits of high intensity training versus high volume low intensity training. And to quote Seiler from his milestone study “ The relative impact of short high intensity training versus longer slower distance training has been debated for decades by coaches, athletes , and scientists” (Seiler, S. and Tonnessen, E., 2009). Seiler goes on to say at the current time the pendulum seems to have swung towards the high intensity school of thinking. In competitive cycling the old school approach was focused on ‘getting the miles in’, especially during the early pre-season part of the cycling season. This view is still widely held today in many quarters, and for good reason. Understandably, elite and professional road riders are renowned for their high training volumes. In contrast the rapid rise of sports science as an academic discipline this last 15 years or so has delivered a much deeper understanding of the role and performance benefits of high intensity training.

Sport’s physiologist Veronique Billat et al have produced some remarkable insights into the benefits of high intensity exercise on sports performance. In fact the sports science literature is now awash with research on high intensity training (HIT) under experimentally controlled conditions. Unlike studies on high volume training (HVT) laboratory based

4

research on high intensity training is relatively easy to undertake, allowing the sports science community to frequently publish their research. In some cases the proven performance enhancements emanating from such research has been so dramatic that it has led some sports scientists and coaches to seriously question the role and value of long steady training in endurance conditioning programmes (see Little, J.P., et al 2010). So the empirical research showing the Polarised training practices amongst elite and professional athletes is very timely bringing together as it does the benefits of combing both high and low intensity training in endurance training programmes. Indeed high intensity interval work developed with multiple time trial champion Stuart Dangerfield produced some remarkable results between 2001 to 2004 when he was almost unbeatable in UK short distance time trial competition (Wright, G. 2001) . But in the light of Seiler’s research and the emergence of the Polarised approach to training, I now feel we overlooked the potentially significant role that long low intensity training played in the success formula especially in 2001. I will return to this later.

A Polarised Training Approach in Elite Endurance Sport

The performance benefits of using Polarised training distributions amongst elite and world class performers has been published in several research articles in respected scientific journals see (Seiler, S., and Tonnessen, E. 2009) ( Esteve–Lanao, J., and Seiler, S. 2007) (Seiler, S., and Kjerland, G. 2006). A significant and somewhat surprising finding was the observation of just how little training was undertaken at or near race pace. Equally, the consistent findings that a very high proportion of training was undertaken at low intensities.

The Polarised training structure is illustrated in diagram 1 (Seiler, S., and Kjerland, G. 2006). Although frequency is used rather than time in this model it illustrates that a high proportion of total training time is undertaken at low intensity and the proportion of training at high intensity is quite small. By its very nature high intensity training will be undertaken in various forms of interval work and will therefore combine doses of high intensity effort interspersed with recovery intervals in any given session. And low intensity training will be undertaken as long duration training, typically as 3 to 6 hour sessions in road cycling.

Diagram 1. The Polarised Model

5

Characteristics of a Polarised Training Model

The Polarised model is defined by two key threshold points VT2 and VT1. VT2 is the second ventilatory threshold point beyond which further energy production becomes increasingly more anaerobic as blood lactate levels increase rapidly and ventilation rate increases markedly in an attempt to control muscle acidosis. This region is often called the red zone as riders fatigue quickly and an oxygen debt develops. VT2 is sometimes referred to as maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) where lactate production just begins to exceed lactate clearance, and more recently called Functional threshold. From extensive ramp test data VT2 occurs most often between 75% and 80% of maximal aerobic power and around 90% of a rider’s maximal heart rate.

VT1 is the first ventilatory threshold where exercise intensity causes an increase in the ventilation rate and depth due an increase in expired carbon dioxide. This results from an initial rise in blood lactate from resting levels. Although lactate levels are raised between VT1 and VT2 and may continue to rise gradually up to VT2 they are readily cleared from the working muscles. Without the use of laboratory measurements of expired gases during graded ramp tests VT1 is more difficult to recognise than VT2. Whilst there is much variation between riders, ramp test data has shown that VT1 is likely to be in the region of 55% to 60% of maximal aerobic power, and ranging from 65% to 75% of maximum heart rate. But the defining point is the rise in blood lactate above resting levels. Training at VT1 is regarded as long steady distance (LSD) and can be sustained for extended periods of time.

The boundary markers VT1 and VT2 effectively split the Polarised model into three training zones based on training intensity. Zone 1 (Z1) is below VT1, Zone 3 (Z3) is above VT2 and it follows that Zone 2 (Z2) is between VT1 and VT2. So each zone boundary is marked by VT1 and VT2 where a clear physiological change takes place in the body as the boundary is crossed. This is a key issue raised by Seiler who indicates that there should be a different physiological stress and rationale for training in each zone. The boundary points are also named as lactate threshold 1 (LT1) and lactate threshold 2 (LT2) and are indicators of the muscle lactate response to training at these intensities.

These three zones and the two ventilatory thresholds are important in the Polarised training model as they are the markers Seiler and colleagues used to classify the training distributions of athletes in their research. From their observations they found that the elite and professional athletes distributed their training typically at: 75% to 80% at or below VT1, some 10% to 15% of training at or above VT2 and the remainder in zone 2 between VT1 and VT2.

For comparison purposes table 1 in the appendices relates and compares the zones to British Cycling’s World Class Performance multiple training zone system. And table 2 relates the three zones to training intensity measured in terms of power output. The reader should note carefully that these three ‘big zones’ in the Polarised model should not be confused with the multiple zones found in many training texts and articles such as British Cycling’s seven zone systems derived from maximum heart rate measures.

So Why Is The Polarised Distribution The Shape It Is?

One conclusion is that it evolved as a proven training strategy by trial and error over time before any scientific rationale came along. Arguably it emerged from considerable practical experience over generations of elite and professional athletes and their coaches who found that it worked, even though there was little scientific evidence to support such an approach.

6

Professional road cyclists back down through the years have always put the miles in, and as previously said, they still do for very good reasons. If it was not found to be efficacious they would not do it. Elite swimmers for generations have swum long distances at low intensity even though their competitions are relatively short. Similarly, rowers put in many hours at low intensity but race typically over 2 km. However, they also train very hard at high intensities for short durations.

Seiler put it this way:

“Training ideas that sound good that don’t work in practice will fade away. Given these conditions any consistent pattern of training distribution emerging across sport disciplines is likely to be a result of successful self organisation (evolution) towards a population optimum. By population optimum we mean an approach to training that results in most athletes making good progress and performing well in their sport”.

Back in the 1950s and 60s the legendary Arthur Lydiard was renowned for demanding high training volumes of his runners, but the volume work was mixed with doses of hard interval work – especially when leading up to major competitions. His greatest athlete was New Zealander Peter Snell who despite being a mile specialist ran distances in training more like those of the marathon runners. But his training programmes included very high intensity track work. Snell set a new world record for 800 metres in 1962 and won two gold medals at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. Amongst Lydiard’s other world class luminaries were Murry Halberg, Rod Dixon, John Walker, and Dick Quax. It would seem from literature sources that Lydiard had a very directive style of coaching that was not always well received. As a result his particular visionary views failed to gain universal acceptance. But the recently published empirical and cell signaling research has shown he was way before his time – by many years.. A Threshold Approach To Endurance Training

The Polarised training distribution is in contrast to the commonly observed approach usedby many club level cyclists who predominantly spend a higher proportion of their training time in Z2 with a higher proportion of training at or near race pace. The motive for this is probably to try and maximise the training effect from limited time availability. Seiler calls spending the majority of training time in Z2 the ‘Threshold Approach’ to endurance training. This is illustrated in the model shown in diagram 2 below and it shows the greater proportion of training is in Z2 between the ventilatory thresholds VT1 and VT2, and comparatively far less in Z1 and Z3.

Diagram 2. The Threshold training model:

7

Interestingly the Threshold model of training looks very much like the so called ‘Sweet Spot’ approach promoted by a number of renowned American coaches and sports scientists such as Andrew Coggan and Hunter Allen of Cycling Peaks. The thinking behind the sweet spot approach is this: by concentrating a high proportion of training in the intermediate intensity region (between VT1 and VT2) you get the best ‘bang for your buck’ because it optimises the balance between time available for training and the intensity used.

There is no doubt that a Threshold approach works and it is possibly the way forward for time constrained endurance athletes who can not put in the large number of training hours each week like elite and professional athletes. So a key question is this: can a Threshold approach yield the same longer term results compared to a Polarised distribution? Unfortunately the answer to this is most probably not. Seiler and others are of the firm view that spending too much time in Z2 is neither one thing nor the other. And they conclude that amateur athletes train too hard during their volume training and certainly not hard enough in their intense training.

The athletes, rowers, skiers, cyclists etc. from the Seiler study were in the in main full time elite and professional performers who were able to spend many hours each week in training and therefore were able to fully exploit the benefits of a Polarised distribution. Figures ranging from 15 to 30 hours a week are quoted, whereas club level athletes and cyclists with other responsibilities will be much less, which makes the application of a Polarised training distribution more difficult for them but not impossible.

Switching On The Endurance Master Switch: PGC-1alpha

Laursen has summarised a considerable volume of the cell signalling research involving PGC-1alpha, (Laursen, P. 2010 ). The cell signalling stages are complex and still being elucidated, but some clear markers have emerged from painstaking step by step research. PGC-1alpha has been identified as a significant cell signalling mediator along complex biochemical pathways leading to the biogenesis of mitochondria and an increase in the capacity of muscles to do more aerobic work.

But the exciting finding is that the appropriately named ‘master switch’ PGC -1alpha can be switched on by both high and low intensity cell signalling pathways. Although the intermediate steps are quite different the end result from both pathways is a significant increase in the muscle concentration of PGC -1alpha. Laursen’s model (see diagram 3) illustrates how both pathways lead to PGC-1alpha which ultimately promotes improvements in aerobic performance. So train hard at high intensity and PGC -1alpha muscle concentration is increased. Equally, train long at low intensity and again the concentration of PGC-1alpha increases.

“with these outcomes in mind it becomes clear what some coaches have known for years – there is more than one way to skin a cat” (Laursen, P. 2010).

The diagram also illustrates the increases which take place in slow twitch muscle fibres, oxidative capacity using fat as the fuel substrate, and an increase in muscle glycogen transport capacity.

8

Diagram 3. The Bio-Molecular Pathways To The ‘Master Switch’

A Brief Explanation Of The Signalling Pathways

According to (Laursen 2009, 2010), there are at least four primary signals leading to increases in mitochondrial mass. But the high and low intensity pathways are of major significance. The low intensity cell signalling pathway causes a rise in intramuscular calcium which occurs during prolonged endurance exercise. This in turn stimulates a cell messenger enzyme called calcium modulin kinase (CaMK) which then stimulates the biogenesis of mitochondria via the Master Switch PCG -1alpha. From the high intensity pathway short duration intense efforts cause reductions in the concentration of adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP) which leads to a rise in the concentration of adenosine mono-phosphate (AMP). According to Laursen this in turn activates a catalyst called AMP activated protein kinase – abbreviated AMPK – another signalling enzyme generating PCG -1alpha and then increases in mitochondrial density, and ultimately improvements in aerobic capacity.

Even more good news is the synergistic effect from both training pathways. The combined effect of HVT and HIT training seems to produce even greater quantities of PGC -1alpha and in turn greater mitochondrial density than from the individual effects of HIT and HVT. This is a very significant finding and strongly supports the view that training to maximise improvements in aerobic performance should jointly comprise both high intensity training and high volume long duration training. This is perhaps one of the most significant outcomes unlocking a deeper understanding of the development of endurance performance from the last 10 years. Additionally the research suggests that the classic approach of ‘get the miles in’ and high intensity training have scientific explanations of why they both lead to improvements in aerobic capacity.

Some Personal Evidence To Support a Polarised Model.

Case 1.

In 2001 Stuart Dangerfield had probably his best ever competitive season. In the winter of 2000 to 2001 he was in Australia from around mid November to the end of March, logging

9

some 5,500 miles, a high proportion of which was undertaken in Z1and low level Z2 on long rides. He came back to the UK at the end of March and for some weeks focussed on road racing, further steady endurance work and some interval sessions giving a weekly average of around 300 to 350 miles. He then went into a six week programme of specific training for the 2001 National 25 mile TT Championship. This period was focussed on a programme of very high intensity interval work – typically two full on HIT sessions a week. Some of the short intervals were executed so hard his calf muscles would actually swell - a ‘pumping iron’ effect sought by body builders. In between racing at the weekend he was often doing two long steady rides LSD per week of five to six hours in company with a veteran friend ensuring the pace was low by Stuart’s standards.

Stuart Dangerfield - World Time Trial Championships: Belgium 2003 – one of his best ever international performances. Starting early in the field of 50 riders he posted the fastest time amongst the first 20 or so riders until the big guns started to finish.

In the 25 mile Championship he blitzed a top class field and won the event by two and half minutes, an almost unheard of winning margin. The previous week he set a new competition record for 10 miles in 18 mins,19 secs. Later in the year we re-used the same six week programme again and he won the British Time Trial Championship by another big margin of nearly two minutes. He then went on to win the National 10 miles TT Championship. He was unbeaten in UK time trial competition in 2001 despite many big names being around at the time.

Case 2.

In February 2007 third category rider Clive Nicholls set about a programme of long steady endurance training. Weekend rides on Saturday and Sunday were varying between 3 and 6 hours - most often 4 and 5 hours. Mid-week riding was very light due to work commitments, but included varying short doses of interval work which we were experimenting with. From February to the end of May his maximal aerobic power measured by Kingcycle ramp tests increased by some 14%. He had a quiet summer period with very little racing and training lapsed to a low level whilst he concentrated on his professional career.

10

In September that same year he became fired up again and resumed his long training weekends – this time frequent doses of 5 and 6 hours rides often back to back on many weekends. The level of intensity during his long rides was typically 75% to 80% of his maximal heart rate. This equates to about VT1 and in the low level region of Seiler's zone 2, namely Z2. In the late autumn his maximal aerobic ramp test power had improved a further 8% and overall during 2007 by a massive 18% since the beginning of the year and was well in excess of 500 watts. During some of his races at the Hillingdon racing circuit in the 2007 winter series he was extraordinarily competitive with the elite riders - including lapping the field on one occasion. The picture is of Clive at the Hillingdon circuit winning from elite rider Paul Pickup who was renowned for his very strong sprint finish. Clive who was not a good sprinter had literally ridden the sprint out of Paul Pickup who can be seen sitting up in despair.

A muscularly ripped Clive winning at Hillingdon December 2007 – the large chasing bunch is nowhere to be seen! Photograph courtesy of Dennis Sackett 2007

What happened to Clive? His professional career took priority and he now rides for pleasure at a more leisurely level. In two major doses he had clearly followed a Periodised approach that amounted to more like 90/10 in its distribution. In his case it produced some remarkable results in just a few months.

Case 3.

In mid January 2008 Nicole Cooke commenced a carefully planned 12 week high volume endurance programme. Her 2007 – 2008 winter training had been seriously delayed due to knee surgery and recovery in the autumn of 2007. Weekly mileage was built up progressively over two macro-cycles with a highest weekly total of almost 30 hours. More than 90% of training was undertaken in the range 70% to 80% of maximal heart rate during frequent 5 and 6 hour rides. The training intensity was mostly in Z1 and some in the low part of Z2. High intensity work during this time was confined mainly to short periodic doses of 4 to 8 all out sprint efforts often towards the later stages of a long ride. She also undertook regular measured all out hill efforts to check on road performance and progress

11

– these were typically 3 to 6 minutes in duration depending on the hill and were mostly ridden at the maximal sustainable power output for each hill – and certainly well above VT2.

Although the rest of Nicole’s season was dominated by World Cup events and major stage races, and then the run in to the Beijing Olympics, this pre-season endurance programme arguably underpinned her Beijing success. And soon after an outstanding win in the World road race Championship and a unique double. Her maximal aerobic power did not increase markedly during the 12 weeks of endurance training, but her economy, efficiency and local muscular endurance was significantly regenerated following on from what had been a very low key winter period and rehabilitation from knee surgery.

The author with Nicole – Switzerland May 2008 - as we discuss final preparations for an international time trial the following day.

These three cases illustrate the performance benefits achieved by very different but mature riders who had effectively employed Polarised structures to good effect in their training at particular points in time. Clive was an out and out endurance rider who responded very well and remarkably quickly to many doses of LSD training. Stuart was a mature and physically strong individual who was able to push himself extraordinarily hard to very good effect during HIT training sessions. Although still relatively young, Nicole is a very experienced professional rider who needs long low intensity training to withstand the endurance demands and stresses of several stage races during a long season. She has also responded well to high intensity training interwoven with LSD training.

Some Conclusions And Training Implications:

The two strategic models considered in this paper can be regarded as being at the opposite ends of a spectrum of structural training choices. Philosophically and physiologically they are opposing paradigms representing two different schools of thought on endurance training. Namely the Polarised model at one end and the Threshold model at the other with potentially many hybrid possibilities in between. This is illustrated in diagram 4 below which indicates some factors which favour one strategic approach or the other. I have not made any attempt here to prescribe particular forms of training embracing these models:

12

this would be another lengthy article. But I will try to draw together some major conclusions and considerations for coaches.

First and foremost the results from the research summarised in this article are strongly in favour of a Polarised approach to endurance training for road cyclists as the strategic choice to guide longer term training programmes. It is clearly a winning strategy for high performing and elite riders. Even so lesser, but aspiring and capable performers and their coaches should give serious consideration to the training implications. So if training time is not a major consideration then the recommendation would be train long and steady at VT1 or in Z1 and sequence this with high intensity interval work undertaken in Z3 week by week. The distribution of the training should be in the proportions of 75% to 80% of volume at LSD and 10% to15% of training as HIT and the balance between the extremes. Also LSD and HIT training sessions mix very well largely because they stress different physiological systems so reducing the potential risks of overtraining.

Diagram 4.

Strategic Choices: Polarised, Threshold or Hybrid Structures

The empirical and cell signalling research has show that by combining HVT as LSD with HIT in the right proportions leads to synergistically greater developments in aerobic capacity than from the separate contributions. In addition there is evidence that LSD actually aids recovery from HIT and therefore each next HIT session can be of high quality – it’s another synergistic effect. One reason put forward for this (Laursen, P. 2010) is that LSD helps restore the body’s autonomic balance which can be severely disturbed during high intensity work. These are very significant outcomes from the research.

Many readers will already have considered the question of what is the lower time limit for a polarised approach. In would suggest around 10 hours per week as a minimum, and where possible build on this. Some coaches my feel very uneasy with the idea of a Polarised model given the limited training time spent in Zone 2, and for some this might require a mind -set change. But the empirical evidence in favour of this approach is very strong and the cell signalling research work clearly supports a Polarised training strategy. There should be no conflict or issue of using a Polarised structure with the key training principle of progressive overload. As with any training programme – the structural elements need to be increased in a controlled and progressive manner with periods of

Polarised Threshold

Low High Rider experience and maturity

Limited Plentiful Time available for training

A Hybrid approach

The extreme strategic approaches

13

overload followed by the all important recovery days and phases to complete the training cycles. In a Polarised model both the HVT and HIT elements can be developed gradually using progressive overload principles whilst still preserving the Polarised structure. There are many possible permutations for coaches to use to sequence HVT and HIT training days and recovery days. And in the medium term, periodise larger training blocks of HVT and HIT over weeks and months.

Another key issue to bear in mind from Seiler’s research is that the athletes studied were in the main mature elite, professional and world class performers who had come through a long process of natural selection. They were the chosen few who adapted well to the prescribed polarised training patterns. So there is an issue of training maturity and the experience of individual riders. For example, if we were starting with young and relatively inexperienced riders should we focus their training towards a Polarised approach or more towards a Threshold approach? Young and less developed riders are most likely not physically and mentally ready for the long hours of LSD, nor the very high intensity of HIT in a full Polarised model. But there should be recognition of the long term development benefits for young road riders of using extended low intensity training sessions to encourage the development of economy, efficiency, and natural pedalling rhythm and other peripheral adaptations such as motor -skill. These key attributes can be gradually developed from more modest training distances to start with. They are important peripheral endurance characteristics that take a long time to fully develop. However, once in place they provide a very sound basis and foundation on which to develop future high performers. Interval training on the other hand can bring measurable results within weeks, but may accelerate developments in young riders at the expense of longer term endurance adaptation. In Seiler’s 2009 milestone paper he says:

“we should be cautious not to over-prescribe high intensity training or exhort the advantages of intensity over volume”.

As coaches we have to make carefully considered choices with young riders. But as rider’s mature and training experience and volume increases a strategy of moving towards a Polarised training structure is most likely to prove an optimal and winning strategy.

Finally the continuum of strategic models shown in diagram 4 is designed to focus attention on some of the key factors such as time availability and rider experience and maturity that should influence decisions concerning the choice of training distributions. The choices between Polarised or Threshold structures, or some hybrid approaches are longer term strategic decisions and not something to be switched frequently within weeks. In the long run a Polarised model will most likely be the optimal choice as riders develop and mature. The legendary Arthur Lydiard seemed to intuitively understand this 50 years ago.

Postscript:

In collating, digesting and summarising the research material for this paper my mind repeatedly went back to 2001 in particular and Stuart Dangerfield’s devastating form in UK time trialling that year. He was also very dominant in 2002 and 2003. In total he won the National 25 mile time trial Championship six times and the British Time Trial Championship five times amongst his many palmares.

We did not realise it in 2001, but we were effectively combining LSD with HIT in what I now recognise as a Polarised approach. Although our championship focus at the time was very much on structured high intensity interval work the interweaving LSD training days were almost certainly playing a significant part in his increased aerobic performance. Furthermore the LSD training days which separated the high intensity training days were

14

most likely helping to speed up Stuart’s recovery from the previous high intensity work and meant he was able to push himself extraordinarily very hard on his next high intensity day. The detail of his HIT training methods and the underlying principles can be found in Wright (2001).

Appendices

Training Intensities and Polarised Training Zones

In this article references to training zones marked with a capital Z - namely Z1, Z2, and Z3 are the three zones effectively defined in Seiler's Polarised model shown in diagram 1. and they must not to be confused with the multiple training zones given in systems such as British Cycling’s World Class Performance (WCP) seven zones developed by Peter Keen and others. For comparison the Polarised zones are likely to equate to the zones in British Cycling’s WCP training intensity system as shown in the following table :

Table 1 Polarised Training Zone and World Class Performance Zones

The following table relates Polarised training zones to training intensity measured by power output as a percentage of maximal aerobic power determined from a graded ramp test. It may prove useful as power meters are now in more common use to guide and monitor training.

Table 2. Polarised Zone And Power Levels

Prescribed WCP zones

WCP heart rate ranges % of max. HR

WCP recommended training durations

Equivalent Polarised Zones

Recovery less than 60% less than 1 hour Recovery zone 1 60% to 65% 1.5 to 6 hours Z1zone 2 65% to 75% 1 to 4 hours Z1 zone 3 75% to 82% 45 mins to 2 hours Z2zone 4 82% to 89% 30 mins to 1 hour Z2zone 5 89% to 94% Long intervals Z3zone 6 94% plus Short intervals Z3

Polarised Zones

Training intensity as a % of maximal aerobic power Training Type

Recovery Less than 50% short duration

continuous riding

Z1 50% to 60% long duration

continuous riding

Z2 60% to 75% short duration

continuous riding

Z3 75% to 200% From long intervals up to supramaximal

sprint efforts

15

References

Esteve–Lanao, J., and Seiler, S. (2007) “Impact of Training Intensity Distribution on Performance in Endurance Athletes.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, vol21 (3).

Laursen, P. (2009) “Training for Intense Exercise Performance: High Intensity or High Volume Training ?” The New Zealand Academy of Sport, Internal paper.

Laursen, P. (2010) “Training for Intense Exercise Performance: High Intensity or High Volume Training.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, vol 20 (supp 2).

(This paper summaries the research findings and conclusions of some 60 research papers all of which refer to many other research papers. It is the summation of hundreds of research papers and investigations – aimed at uncovering some of the complex biochemical processes that lead to improvements in physical performance. It is recommended reading.)

Little, J.P., et al (2010) “A practical model of low volume high intensity interval training induces mitochondrial biogenesis in human skeletal muscle” Journal of Physiology: 588, 1011- 1022.

Seiler, S. and Kjerland, G., (2006) “Quantifying Training Intensity Distribution in Elite Endurance Athletes: Is there evidence for an optimal distribution ?” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, vol 16.

Seiler, S. and Tonnessen, E., (2009) “Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: The Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training”. Sports Science, 13,

(This paper summarises some ten years of empirical investigations into the training methods of elite athletes from a variety of endurance sports, including cycling at elite and professional levels. A long paper but recommended reading. )

Wright, G. (2001) ‘High Performance Interval Training’. ABCC ‘Coaching News’, No. 3 (Stuart Dangerfield’s Training Methods). Not for the feint hearted.

* * * * * * * * * *

16