Does Polarized Training Improve Performance in Recreational Runners?

ABACUS/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Muñoz Pérez, Iker spa
dc.contributor.author Seiler, Stephen spa
dc.contributor.author Bautista, Javier spa
dc.contributor.author España, Javier spa
dc.contributor.author Larumbe Zabala, Eneko spa
dc.contributor.author Esteve Lanao, Jonathan spa
dc.date.accessioned 2014-03-18T10:07:02Z
dc.date.available 2014-03-18T10:07:02Z
dc.date.issued 2014 spa
dc.identifier.citation Muñoz, I., Seiler, S., Bautista, J., España, J., Larumbe, E., & Esteve-Lanao, J. (2014). Does polarized training improve performance in recreational runners? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 9(2), 265-272. spa
dc.identifier.issn 15550265 spa
dc.identifier.issn 15550265 spa
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/11268/1931
dc.description.abstract PURPOSE: To quantify the impact of training-intensity distribution on 10K performance in recreational athletes. METHODS: 30 endurance runners were randomly assigned to a training program emphasizing low-intensity, sub-ventilatory-threshold (VT), polarized endurance-training distribution (PET) or a moderately high-intensity (between-thresholds) endurance-training program (BThET). Before the study, the subjects performed a maximal exercise test to determine VT and respiratory-compensation threshold (RCT), which allowed training to be controlled based on heart rate during each training session over the 10-wk intervention period. Subjects performed a 10-km race on the same course before and after the intervention period. Training was quantified based on the cumulative time spent in 3 intensity zones: zone 1 (low intensity, <VT), zone 2 (moderate intensity, between VT and RCT), and zone 3 (high intensity, >RCT). The contribution of total training time in each zone was controlled to have more low-intensity training in PET (±77/3/20), whereas for BThET the distribution was higher in zone 2 and lower in zone 1 (±46/35/19). RESULTS: Both groups significantly improved their 10K time (39min18s ± 4min54s vs 37min19s ± 4min42s, P < .0001 for PET; 39min24s ± 3min54s vs 38min0s ± 4min24s, P < .001 for BThET). Improvements were 5.0% vs 3.6%, ~41 s difference at post-training-intervention. This difference was not significant. However, a subset analysis comparing the 12 runners who actually performed the most PET (n = 6) and BThET (n = 16) distributions showed greater improvement in PET by 1.29 standardized Cohen effect-size units (90% CI 0.31-2.27, P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: Polarized training can stimulate greater training effects than between-thresholds training in recreational runners. spa
dc.language.iso eng spa
dc.title Does Polarized Training Improve Performance in Recreational Runners? spa
dc.type article spa
dc.description.impact 2.662 JCR (2014) Q1, 13/81 Sport sciences; Q2, 34/83 Physiology spa
dc.identifier.doi 10.1123/ijspp.2012-0350 spa
dc.rights.accessRights closedAccess en
dc.subject.unesco Deporte spa
dc.subject.unesco Fisiología humana spa
dc.description.filiation UEM spa
dc.peerreviewed Si spa

Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record