PURPOSE: To quantify the impact of a polarized distribution of training intensity on performance and fatigue in elite swimmers. METHODS:Twenty-two elite junior swimmers (12 males, age = 17 [3] y, and 10 females, age = 17 [3] y) participated in a crossover intervention study over 28 wk involving 2- × 6-wk training periods separated by 6 wk. Swimmers were randomly assigned to a training group for the first period: polarized (81% in zone 1, blood lactate concentration, [La]b ≤ 2 mmol·L-1; 4% in zone 2, 2 mmol·L-1 < [La]b ≤ 4 mmol·L-1; and 15% in zone 3, [La]b > 4 mmol·L-1) or threshold (65%/25%/10%). Before and after each period, they performed a 100-m maximal swimming test to determine performance, maximal [La]b, and oxygen consumption and an incremental swimming test to determine speed corresponding to [La]b = 4 mmol·L-1 (V4 mmol·L-1). Self-reported indices of well-being were collected with a daily questionnaire. RESULTS:Polarized training elicited small to moderately greater improvement than threshold training on 100-m performance (within-group change ± 90% confidence interval: 0.97% ± 1.02% vs 0.09% ± 0.94%, respectively) with less fatigue and better quality of recovery. There was no substantial gender effect. No clear differences were observed in physiological adaptations between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In elite junior swimmers, a 6-wk period of polarized training induced small improvements in 100-m time-trial performance and, in combination with less perceived fatigue, forms a viable option for coaches preparing such cohorts of swimmers for competition.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To quantify the impact of a polarized distribution of training intensity on performance and fatigue in elite swimmers. METHODS: Twenty-two elite junior swimmers (12 males, age = 17 [3] y, and 10 females, age = 17 [3] y) participated in a crossover intervention study over 28 wk involving 2- × 6-wk training periods separated by 6 wk. Swimmers were randomly assigned to a training group for the first period: polarized (81% in zone 1, blood lactate concentration, [La]b ≤ 2 mmol·L-1; 4% in zone 2, 2 mmol·L-1 < [La]b ≤ 4 mmol·L-1; and 15% in zone 3, [La]b > 4 mmol·L-1) or threshold (65%/25%/10%). Before and after each period, they performed a 100-m maximal swimming test to determine performance, maximal [La]b, and oxygen consumption and an incremental swimming test to determine speed corresponding to [La]b = 4 mmol·L-1 (V4 mmol·L-1). Self-reported indices of well-being were collected with a daily questionnaire. RESULTS: Polarized training elicited small to moderately greater improvement than threshold training on 100-m performance (within-group change ± 90% confidence interval: 0.97% ± 1.02% vs 0.09% ± 0.94%, respectively) with less fatigue and better quality of recovery. There was no substantial gender effect. No clear differences were observed in physiological adaptations between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In elite junior swimmers, a 6-wk period of polarized training induced small improvements in 100-m time-trial performance and, in combination with less perceived fatigue, forms a viable option for coaches preparing such cohorts of swimmers for competition.
Entities:
Keywords:
intensity distribution; swimming performance; training periodization; training zones
Authors: José María González-Ravé; David B Pyne; José Antonio Del Castillo; Fernando González-Mohíno; Michael H Stone Journal: Biol Sport Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 4.606
Authors: Francisco Hermosilla; José M González-Rave; José Antonio Del Castillo; David B Pyne Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 3.390