HOW TOSLICE THE PIE? RETHINKING POLARISED TRAINING

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

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

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

A polarised approach to intensity distribution sounds simple enough: keep your training mostly easy while including a sprinkling of high-intensity sessions. However, defining what we