Sweet Sport, Polarized and Pyramidal Training Plans

I got some questions on various training topics which I will discuss here. If you have something you’d like me to cover in a future article please contact me.

Sweet spot training? Is it actually beneficial, and if so what is it beneficial for? Does it even fit in with polarized training?

Sweet Spot is an intensity, that is in the second zone in the three-zone model used in most clinical studies see diagram below. This is between the first lactate threshold (LT1) and the second lactate threshold (LT2) and is inarguably massively beneficial; this type of “controlled threshold” work features in the plans of all successful aerobic athletes.

The first lactate threshold (LT1) also known as the aerobic threshold is used to demarcate zone 1 and 2. LT1 is defined as the lowest intensity at which there is a sustained increase in blood lactate concentration above resting values. The second lactate threshold, also known as LT2 or maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) is used to demarcate zone 2 and 3. LT2 is defined as the intensity that causes a rapid increase in blood lactate indicating the upper limit of equilibrium between lactate production and clearance.

For cycling this would be intervals 88-94% of your Functional Threshold Power (FTP) and for running intervals at around half-marathon-race-pace or slightly faster (often referred to as tempo or threshold) but it depends on the interval duration and how it is stacked against other workouts, so in practice these can be anywhere between marathon race pace and 60-minute race pace.

I think where the confusion occurs is when it is applied as an “approach” such as is implied in the diagram above, where the frequency of activities and the majority of work is done in this zone. The other two lines in the diagram are Po = Polarized and Py = Pyramidal.

So as an “approach” it does not fit with Polarized, but as an intensity polarized plans certainly use sweet spot intensity.

Note that lab researchers use 2 mmol to 4 mmol to define this zone’s “threshold” training (they need to have some boundaries) but it doesn’t mean that the best threshold training intensity is this generalized upper boundary of LT2 at 4 mmol. We know that the Norwegian system focuses on the 2.3 to 3.0 mmol range and that athletes have individually tailored targets. This is still both “threshold” and sweet spot,  but definitely not at the high end. 

I don’t think we need to go into the benefits of controlled threshold workouts as this is well documented, but as an overall approach, I think a bias towards Sw (Sweet Spot) could be beneficial for very time-crunched individuals who want to target the broadest benefits in the least time. This of course has its limitations, but if the goal is general fitness and not longer endurance events then I don’t see why not.

The other two lines in the graph are interesting. Polarized assumes a greater “polarization” between Z1 and Z3, whereas Pyramidal assumes a stepping down of volume, most Z1, some Z2, and a little Z3. Note that the Y axis is “Training Frequency” and therefore the areas of the graphs don’t map to actual volume which I think can be a bit misleading.

I would say my own training is Pyramidal (rather than Polarized). I place a priority on a) easy weekly volume b) threshold (sweet spot) sessions and c) short hard intervals. Interestingly I listened to Greta Koens (a Dutch elite coach) with her 10k athletes. She does not have VO2-specific intervals in her plans. Her focus is easy volume plus threshold sessions and then a very short session of anaerobic sprints.

Comparing Sw with Po/Py as an approach isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison. When weekly volume gets above a certain level, Po/Py isn’t a choice, it is a necessity!

In practice, most people who think they are polarized are in fact pyramidal. I very much believe in looking at the demands of a race and reverse engineering the training principles. Smart athletes and coaches do this and don’t spend their time on social media banging the drum for one very strict approach or another. Specificity is also important, for example, half marathon plans will have a larger focus on threshold work, especially during the race preparation phase.

A article published in the European Journal of Sport Science compared the volume of systematic training and different training activities undertaken by elite-standard long-distance runners under different National training systems.

Again using the 3 Zone model the following approximations on training distributions can be made:

• A Pyramidal model ~75-85% in easy Zone 1, ~10-20% in moderate Zone 2, and ~5-10% in hard Zone 3

• A Polarized model ~75-85% in easy Zone 1, ~5-10% in moderate Zone 2, and ~10-15% in hard Zone 3.

• A Threshold/Sweet Spot model ~60-75% in easy Zone 1, ~20-30% in moderate Zone 2, and a small proportion in hard Zone 3. [Note that this is still Pyramidal just that the Zone 2 work takes a higher %].

Most North American and European elites used the Pyramidal Model. Very few elite athletes used the Polarized model. The East African systems had a higher percentage of threshold work. For example, Kenyan athletes were completing about 60% of their total kilometers as easy runs, 25% as tempo runs, just under 10% as short intervals, just under 5% as long intervals and around 1% as tests/competitions. The popularized “Norwegian” system also has a relatively high threshold model component similar to the Kenyans.

Periodization. Is it necessary for us amateur athletes? How should we then structure it?

Triathlon Coach Brett Sutton might say it isn’t necessary – it’s probably more correct to say that he keeps it very simple. I would say that it’s nothing I worry about as it takes care of itself with the annual seasons and different events. My pool swimming sets the backbone of my fitness and that goes from August to May … I try to keep a high level of general fitness and then “specialize” towards an event in an 8 to 10-week cycle. I have found very long focused builds either drain me mentally and take away the fun (or injure me!). In terms of principles I work from least specific fitness to the most specific fitness. That can also be confusing. Traditional periodization taken from middle-distance runners goes from a big base of easy distance at the start and ends with speed. For ultra runners, marathon swimmers and long-course triathletes, to be specific it needs to be the opposite way around!

Thoughts from Masters of Tri – coach Matt Hill

In essence, periodization is both simple and complex. In simple terms, it is forming a plan working backward from the point that a peak performance is needed (a race), considering the demands of the sport on that given day, and distributing the training types to achieve the (hoped-for) optimal outcome. For endurance sports I have found “reverse periodization” more useful than a “traditional/linear periodization” approach – both approaches are a generalized term given to the overall seasonal distribution of training (the macrocycle), both approaches work but are more specific to certain sporting types.

Matt points out that they are both named for the sake of naming!

“Traditional” periodization was the first officially described (hence “traditional”), its other name “linear” refers to the linear progression of specificity to reach peak performance on competition day. The pre-defined approach is high volume/low intensity working to low volume/ high intensity, which IS the periodization model needed for high-intensity sports (weightlifting, jumping sports, throwing sports, etc.). “Reverse” periodization came afterward, and was basically a counter-argument to the traditional approach, from the aerobic sports community – all that happened, in reality, is the training specificity was redistributed to suit the peak performance goals of endurance athletes; making the periodization “linear” in the favor of low volume / higher intensity working towards high volume / lower intensity – aiming to compete with the best aerobic capacity on competition day.

Both approaches are linear and traditional within their sports?! To name a few factors that make periodization complex (and less effective):

• Being too fixated on the route defined, not adapting to life

• Incorporating too many training types/intensity levels

• Focusing too long /short a period on the chosen intensity levels

• Having a one-size-fits-all plan with no individual tailoring

Different types of athletes. Some athletes are very good at threshold, others at VO2. How should you adjust your training? For instance, I am very strong at VO2, but pretty average at threshold. I fear that when training as a percentage of FTP (Functional Threshold Power) this is not taken into account.

My findings are that percentages of FTP below LT2 are fairly consistent in how they are perceived across groups of athletes. Whereas percentages above FTP can vary widely. So a bike VO2 max interval at 120% FTP might be just right for me but you would need to be higher to give the same stimulus. You can always turn off ERG mode for those types of intervals! Also if you wanted to address your bias to high-end power you may need to increase the volume and decrease the intensity of the Z1 sessions (three-zone-model), you could also try the Koens approach for a while and avoid VO2.

How long do endurance sessions need to be? Can they be replaced by shorter sweet spot sessions?

In terms of general aerobic fitness gains the clinical evidence is that they can, the caveat is that if you are training for longer events (let’s say over 3 hours) you need the specificity of those long endurance sessions. Which is why I don’t like events over three hours! For running the first 60 minutes is almost always beneficial, then 60-90 minutes the benefits curve flattens off, and after 2 hours you probably aren’t getting a good cost-benefit ratio. For biking it’s probably at least double those times. Most people go too hard in these types of sessions to actually achieve the stimulus that they are intended for. I look to increase the total weekly volume by running more easy sessions rather than prioritizing a single over-distance session. Over-distance training sessions can be beneficial when specific to a particular event (or a specific athlete) but for most people doing too many, too often will negatively impact your overall training quality.

Dual threshold days like the Ingebrigtsen brothers. Can that be beneficial for amateurs?

Double threshold is really quite a simple idea but the majesty is in the execution. You run intervals at your threshold pace/effort on a particular day in both the morning and the evening as this allows you to run an overall higher volume at threshold intensity than if you ran one session alone (albeit the single session would be slightly longer). You strictly monitor your effort levels (either objectively with lactate monitors or HR, or by subjectively assessing your own effort levels) to ensure that you don’t go harder than LT2 (they stay much lower than 4 mmol). Note that threshold intensity is viewed as an effort level that allows a whole range of paces to be used, not as a rigid pace.

So if executed correctly, logically it should be beneficial to non-elites too. Instead of doing your normal single session of threshold intervals. You’d do an “easier” version of that session in the morning and another in the evening… to get more work done for a similar recovery debt of the single session.

In Ingebrigtsens’ case it could look something like this:

• AM: 5 x 6 minutes (2.5 mmol) – around their marathon pace

• PM: 10 × 3 minutes (3.5 mmol) – a little faster than their half-marathon-pace

Note they also do a Saturday session 20 x 200m hill repeats at 8 mmol – but that sounds less fun!