Bad news: there’s no supreme training method. Good news: all the reliable methods work if you’re disciplined.
When it comes to endurance training, there’s a lot of talk about how to train effectively. A hot topic is training intensity distribution (TID). Simply put, these are different ways to manage how hard you train.
Some trainers swear by the polarized method. This means spending most of your time training at a low intensity with just a bit of high-intensity work. Others prefer the “sweet spot” approach, where you train at a moderate intensity more often. Then there’s the term “zone 2,” which can mean different things depending on whether you’re using a 3-, 5-, or 7-zone system. And let’s not forget HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training) and other variations. It can get pretty confusing!
With so many differing opinions, figuring out a training plan can feel overwhelming. Do you need to stick to one method for the best results? A recent study aimed to clear this up. Researchers reviewed 20 years of data from 13 different studies involving 350 endurance athletes.
This review, led by sports physiologist Michael A. Rosenblat and Stephen Seiler, a pioneer of the polarized training model, found that elite athletes often improve performance by primarily training at lower intensities with occasional high-intensity sessions. In the end, they concluded that there isn’t one best method; all the main training models have their benefits.
This might leave some advocates scratching their heads, but there is good news. According to Jem Arnold, a co-author of the study and a PhD candidate in exercise physiology, sticking to a chosen training plan is key. It’s less about which model you choose and more about your commitment.
Arnold specializes in metabolic testing and athlete profiling and has a background in honing effective training plans. He recently shared insights on these findings in a podcast. He emphasizes that consistency is what leads to improvement in endurance training.
