Polarized vs. High Intensity Multimodal Training in Recreational Runners

• Published in: International journal of sports physiology and performance p. 1
• Main Authors: Carnes, Andrew J, Mahoney, Sara E
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 28.06.2018
• ISSN: 1555-0273

This study longitudinally compared changes in running performance (5-km TT) and fitness (VO max, body composition) between polarized training and CrossFit Endurance in recreational runners. Participants (N=21) completed 12 weeks of CrossFit Endurance (CFE) or polarized endurance training (POL). Both groups trained 5 d·wk . POL ran 5 d·wk while CFE ran 3 d·wk and performed CrossFit 3 d·wk (run + CF 1 d·wk ). Intensity was classified as low, moderate, or high (Zone 1, 2, or 3) according to ventilatory thresholds. POL was prescribed greater volume (295±67 min·wk ), distributed as 85/5/10% in Z1/Z2/Z3. CFE emphasized a lower volume (110±18 min·wk ) distribution of 48/8/44%. POL ran 283±75.9 min·wk and 47.3±11.6 km·wk , both exceeding the 117±32.2 min·wk and 19.3±7.17 km·wk in CFE (p<0.001). The POL distribution (74/11/15%) had greater total and percent Z1 (p<0.001) than CFE (46/15/39%), which featured higher percent Z3 (p<0.001). TT improved -93.8±40.4s (-6.21±2.16%) in POL (p<0.001) and -84.2±65.7s (-5.49±3.56%) in CFE (p=0.001). Body composition improved by -2.45±2.59 %fat in POL (p=0.02) and -2.62±2.53% CFE (p=0.04). The magnitude of improvement was not different between groups for TT (p=0.79) or BC (p=0.88). Both groups increased VO max (p≤0.01), but with larger magnitude (p=0.04, d=0.85) in POL (4.3±3.6 ml·kg·min ) than CFE (1.78±1.9 ml·kg·min ). Recreational runners achieved similar improvement in 5-km performance and body composition through polarized training or CFE, but POL yielded a greater increase in VO max. Extrapolation to longer distances requires additional research.