Polarized Training: The Key to Elite Marathon Performance
-
The Method and Benefits of Polarized Training
Introduction
Have you ever wondered how world-class marathon runners train? Surprisingly, a significant portion of their training consists of low-intensity running. Elite athletes often dedicate up to 80% of their training to low-intensity workouts, which is a core principle of Polarized Training—a scientifically validated method that maximizes performance while ensuring adequate recovery.
What is Polarized Training?
Polarized Training is a training methodology that eliminates moderate-intensity workouts, instead focusing on two extremes: low-intensity and high-intensity training. This approach is widely used not only in running but also in endurance sports like swimming, cycling, and triathlon. Many world-class athletes, including Eliud Kipchoge, incorporate this method into their training.
The reason for minimizing moderate-intensity training is simple: it provides relatively lower benefits compared to the physiological stress it imposes. Instead, approximately 80% of training time is dedicated to low-intensity workouts, while the remaining 20% is allocated to high-intensity training. This distribution ensures that athletes recover adequately while optimizing the effectiveness of high-intensity sessions.
Structure of Polarized Training
Unlike the conventional five-zone training model, Polarized Training categorizes effort levels into three zones based on lactate threshold levels:
- Zone 1: Low-intensity training (below LT1)
- Zone 2: Moderate-intensity training (between LT1 and LT2)
- Zone 3: High-intensity training (above LT2)
(1) High-Intensity Training (Zone 3)
Zone 3 involves workouts at or above Lactate Threshold 2 (LT2), where the body experiences significant lactate accumulation. Due to the high physiological demand, Zone 3 training typically comprises only 15–20% of total training time.
Athletes carefully structure their Zone 3 sessions to improve specific performance aspects:
- Training near or slightly above LT2 enhances lactate threshold and muscular endurance.
- Interval training at VO₂max intensity helps improve speed and aerobic capacity.
Since Zone 3 training heavily relies on anaerobic metabolism, it results in high glycogen consumption and increased lactate production. Consequently, athletes use Zone 1 training to clear lactate and facilitate recovery.
✅ Intensity: Above LT2
✅ Training time: 15–20% of total volume
✅ Key benefits: Improves speed, VO₂max, lactate threshold
✅ Training types: Threshold runs, interval training, HIIT
(2) Low-Intensity Zone (Zone 1)
Zone 1 comprises the majority of Polarized Training (75–80%), involving easy runs performed at or below Lactate Threshold 1 (LT1). This training zone is crucial for aerobic development and recovery.
Key benefits of Zone 1 training:
- Maximizes oxygen utilization and fat metabolism.
- Facilitates lactate clearance and muscle recovery.
- Allows for long-duration workouts without excessive fatigue.
Since high-intensity workouts generate significant fatigue, athletes prioritize Zone 1 training to enhance aerobic capacity and support recovery from intense sessions.
✅ Intensity: Below LT1
✅ Training time: 75–80% of total volume
✅ Key benefits: Enhances aerobic metabolism, promotes recovery
✅ Training types: Long slow distance (LSD) runs, easy jogging, low-intensity cycling
(3) Moderate-Intensity Zone (Zone 2)
Zone 2 represents the intensity between LT1 and LT2, where both aerobic and anaerobic energy systems are active. However, compared to high-intensity workouts, Zone 2 training offers limited performance benefits while still being physiologically demanding.
For this reason, Polarized Training minimizes Zone 2 sessions, as they contribute to fatigue without providing significant performance gains.
✅ Intensity: Between LT1 and LT2
✅ Training time: Kept to a minimum
✅ Key characteristics: Moderate physiological stress but limited adaptation benefits
Benefits and Application of Polarized Training
Polarized Training offers several key advantages:
- Optimized Performance Gains – High-intensity workouts push physiological limits, while low-intensity training ensures proper recovery.
- Prevention of Overtraining – The majority of training is performed at low intensity, reducing the risk of burnout and injuries.
- Reduced Psychological Stress – Since intense sessions are strategically spaced, mental fatigue from training is minimized.
Polarized training ultimately maximizes performance for endurance athletes. Below is an example of a polarized training program that can be applied weekly:
Example Weekly Training Program
- Monday: 60 min easy jog (Zone 1)
- Tuesday: 4 min high-intensity run + 2 min moderate recovery, 8 sets of Fartlek Training (Zone 3 & Zone 1–2)
- Wednesday: 60 min low-intensity cycling (Zone 1)
- Thursday: 60 min easy jog (Zone 1)
- Friday: 45 min threshold run (Zone 3 – lower end)
- Saturday: 120 min long slow distance (LSD) run (Zone 1)
- Sunday: Full rest
Limitations of Polarized Training
While Polarized Training is highly effective, it is not suitable for everyone.
- Requires a High Training Volume – Effective implementation demands 8–12 hours of weekly training over at least 8 weeks. Recreational athletes who train only 2–4 times per week may see limited benefits.
- Increased Injury Risk – The exclusion of moderate-intensity workouts means that high-intensity training carries a higher risk of injury, especially for beginners.
Conclusion
Polarized Training is a scientifically validated method that has been proven effective for endurance athletes. By following this approach, runners can maximize their race-day potential while ensuring adequate recovery.
However, proper execution requires commitment, patience, and a long-term training strategy. Many runners struggle with the monotony of low-intensity training and may be tempted to increase intensity unnecessarily. This can lead to excessive lactate accumulation, insufficient recovery, and overtraining.
For optimal results, always train with purpose, not ego—and remember:
"Don’t race during training. Train for the race."
References
1. Bishop, D., Girard, O., & Mendez-Villanueva, A. (2011). Repeated-sprint ability—part II: recommendations for training. Sports Medicine, 41, 741-756.
2. Casado, A., González-Mohíno, F., González-Ravé, J. M., & Foster, C. (2022). Training periodization, methods, intensity distribution, and volume in highly trained and elite distance runners: a systematic review. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 17(6), 820-833.
3. Galán-Rioja, M. Á., Gonzalez-Ravé, J. M., González-Mohíno, F., & Seiler, S. (2023). Training periodization, intensity distribution, and volume in trained cyclists: a systematic review. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 18(2), 112-122.
4. Haugen, T., Sandbakk, Ø., Seiler, S., & Tønnessen, E. (2022). The training characteristics of world-class distance runners: an integration of scientific literature and results-proven practice. Sports Medicine-Open, 8(1), 46.
5. Kenneally, M., Casado, A., & Santos-Concejero, J. (2018). The effect of periodization and training intensity distribution on middle-and long-distance running performance: a systematic review. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 13(9), 1114-1121.
6. 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.
7. Obradović, J., Vukadinović, M., Pantović, M., & Baić, M. (2016). HIIT vs moderate intensity endurance training: impact on aerobic parameters in young adult men. Acta Kinesiologica, 10(Suppl 1), 35-40.
8. Seiler, K. S., & Kjerland, G. Ø. (2006). Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: is there evidence for an “optimal” distribution? Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 16(1), 49-56.
9. Seiler, S. (2010). What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution in endurance athletes? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 5(3), 276-291.
10. Stöggl, T., & Sperlich, B. (2014). Polarized training has greater impact on key endurance variables than threshold, high intensity, or high volume training. Frontiers in Physiology, 5, 33.
11. Stöggl, T. L., & Sperlich, B. (2015). The training intensity distribution among well-trained and elite endurance athletes. Frontiers in Physiology, 6, 295.