Training Intensity Distribution: Polarized or Pyramidal?

This is Part 2 replying to questions about the final bullet point in “Training Tips for Masters Rowers” and intensity management. Polarized or pyramidal is the question of how we emphasize and allocate training of different intensity zones in our training program. Like periodization, everyone uses some form of intensity distribution whether they know it or not. We can intentionally modify exactly how we balance our low, middle, and high-intensity training to achieve more consistent training and better performance. As with consolidated-vs-distributed intensity planning, this applies to all rowers, but in my opinion, is especially key for masters rowers’ sustainable training.

I’ll use a three-zone training model for this discussion to keep things simple. Low-intensity is below 2mM blood lactate, or between approximately 55-85% heart rate max. Middle-intensity is the threshold range between 2mM and 4mM blood lactate, or about 85-90% heart rate max. High-intensity is above 4mM blood lactate or above 90% heart rate max. For more on the 3-zone system, watch physiologist Dr. Stephen Seiler’s nice concise video.

Polarized training is often referred to as “80/20 training” to describe how training is mostly firmly low intensity (80%) or firmly high intensity (20%) with as near to zero training as possible in the middle-intensity zone.

Pyramidal training increases in steps: 80% low intensity, around 15% at threshold, and around 5% at high intensity.

Polarized and pyramidal are the big two. See this article (“What is the Best Way to Train to Become a Star Endurance Athlete?” 2018) for simple (kid-friendly, even) descriptions of other ways to distribute training intensity.

Which one works better?

There’s only one study directly comparing approaches in rowing, and it only sort of does that due to some funny business in training plan execution.

Fourteen male German National Team rowers performed 11 weeks of polarized (POL) or pyramidal (PYR) training with a pre-training and post-training 2km erg test to evaluate performance effect. The researchers found that all rowers improved their 2km erg an average of two seconds with no significant difference in performance between groups.

The snag is that the researchers gave the rowing coaches license to adjust the program from the researchers’ design. This resulted in some major shifting of the training plans from the original design. The rowers from both groups did about 93% low-intensity training, so not much separated them in middle or high-intensity training. The PYR group did 3% middle-intensity versus POL’s 1%. POL did 6% in high-intensity versus PYR’s 2%. This was a statistically significant difference to fit the technical definitions of POL and PYR, but it’s not in line with conventional definitions. It’s possible that a more differentiated model would have shown different results. There are still some worthwhile takeaways from this article, but it’s not a true comparison of polarized and pyramidal models.

You can do better! If you want to do an experiment, use this winter training time to test the models on yourself. Do a pre-study erg test, calculate your max heart rate (don’t use estimators!) and training zones, then do 10 weeks of polarized training with around 80% low and 20% high-intensity training, with as little middle-intensity training as possible.

Repeat the pre-study erg test according to the same parameters, then take a deload week of reduced training for recovery.

Do 10 weeks of pyramidal training with about 80% low, 15% middle, 5% high-intensity, and repeat the erg test. See which model works better for you and which you liked better as you trained. This 22-week experiment takes you into May of 2021. If we’re getting ready for summer racing by then, you’ll be in great shape and have an improved understanding of how your body responds to the different styles of training.