Maximising Cycling Performance Through Polarised Training

Introduction

Cycling performance depends on aerobic capacity, muscular endurance, recovery ability and the capacity to produce high power when required. One widely supported training approach that has gained substantial scientific backing in recent years is polarised training. This method distributes training intensity so that the majority of work is completed at lowintensity, while a smaller proportion is carried out at very high intensity — with relatively little time spent in the moderate, threshold-like middle zone.

Research led by Stephen Seiler and colleagues found that elite endurance athletes often naturally organise training in this polarised pattern, with approximately 80% of training volume at low intensity and 20% at high intensity.¹ This distribution has since been shown to improve performance markers such as VO₂max, lactate threshold power and time-to-exhaustion in both well‑trained and recreational cyclists.² ³

Why Polarised Training Works

1. Aerobic Efficiency

Low‑intensity training (LIT) encourages mitochondrial development and capillary density without excessive fatigue. This builds a sustainable aerobic base, enabling stronger performance in longer events.

2. Quality of High‑Intensity Work

By avoiding frequent moderately hard sessions, athletes arrive at high‑intensity interval training (HIIT) sessions fresher and able to reach higher power outputs. High‑intensity work above the second ventilatory threshold stimulates increases in VO₂max and improves maximal aerobic power.³

3. Better Fatigue Management

Polarised training reduces the accumulation of unnecessary fatigue caused by repeated “grey zone” sessions (moderately hard training). This supports better long‑term consistency and recovery.

How to Apply Polarised Training

A typical polarised week may involve:

• 3–5 low‑intensity endurance rides

• 1–2 high‑intensity sessions

• No more than one moderate‑intensity session, if any

Low intensity should feel comfortable (conversational), roughly ≤75% of HRmax or ≤65% of FTP.

High intensity involves near‑maximal cardiovascular effort, typically ≥90% of VO₂max or well above threshold.

Example Workouts

Low‑Intensity Endurance Ride

• Duration: 90–180 minutes

• Intensity: Zone 1–2 (≤65% FTP / ≤75% HRmax)

• Cadence relaxed, breathing controlled

  Purpose: Develop aerobic base and improve fat oxidation.

High‑Intensity Intervals – VO₂max Focus

• Warm‑up: 15 minutes easy

• Main Set: 4 × 5 minutes at 105–120% FTP

  Recovery: 5 minutes easy between intervals

• Cool down: 10 minutes

  Purpose: Increase VO₂max and maximal aerobic power.

Sprint Repeat Session

• Warm‑up: 20 minutes easy

• Main Set: 12 × 15‑second all‑out sprints

  Recovery: 2 minutes easy spin between efforts

• Cool down: 10 minutes

  Purpose: Improve neuromuscular power and anaerobic recruitment.

Optional Recovery Ride

• Duration: 45–60 minutes

• Gentle pace, very low intensity

  Purpose: Promote circulation and recovery without stress.

Practical Weekly Example (Approximate 80/20 Split)

Day	Session Type	Notes
Monday	Rest or recovery ride	Very easy
Tuesday	High‑intensity interval day	VO₂max or sprint session
Wednesday	Low‑intensity endurance ride	1.5–3 hours
Thursday	Low‑intensity ride	Shorter if needed
Friday	Rest or very easy spin	Encourage recovery
Saturday	Long low‑intensity ride	2–4 hours depending on level
Sunday	Optional low‑intensity ride or rest	Maintain freshness

Conclusion

Polarised training is a highly effective approach for cyclists aiming to improve aerobic capacity, high‑intensity power and long‑duration performance while avoiding excessive fatigue. By completing most rides at an easy pace and reserving hard efforts for targeted high‑intensity sessions, cyclists can achieve sustained improvements in performance across a season.

References

1. Seiler, 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.

2. 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.

3. Neal, C. M., et al. (2013). Six weeks of a polarized training-intensity distribution leads to greater physiological and performance adaptations than a threshold model in trained cyclists. Journal of Applied Physiology, 114(4), 461–471.