Background

Polarized training intensity distribution (POL) was recently suggested to be superior to other training intensity distribution (TID) regimens for endurance performance improvement.

Objective

We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze evidence comparing POL to other TIDs on endurance performance.

Methods

PRISMA guidelines were followed. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022365117). PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to 20 October 2022 for studies in adults and young adults for ≥ 4 weeks comparing POL with other TID interventions regarding VO₂peak, time-trial (TT), time to exhaustion (TTE) or speed or power at the second ventilatory or lactate threshold (V/P at VT₂/LT₂). Risk of bias was assessed with RoB-2 and ROBINS-I. Certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE. Results were analyzed by random effects meta-analysis using standardized mean differences.

Results

Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 437 subjects). Pooled effect estimates suggest POL superiority for improving VO₂peak (SMD = 0.24 [95% CI 0.01, 0.48]; z = 2.02 (p = 0.040); 11 studies, n = 284; I² = 0%; high certainty of evidence). Superiority, however, only occurred in shorter interventions (< 12 weeks) (SMD = 0.40 [95% CI 0.08, 0.71; z = 2.49 (p = 0.01); n = 163; I² = 0%) and for highly trained athletes (SMD = 0.46 [95% CI 0.10, 0.82]; z = 2.51 (p = 0.01); n = 125; I² = 0%). The remaining endurance performance surrogates were similarly affected by POL and other TIDs: TT (SMD = – 0.01 [95% CI -0.28, 0.25]; z = − 0.10 (p = 0.92); n = 221; I² = 0%), TTE (SMD = 0.30 [95% CI – 0.20, 0.79]; z = 1.18 (p = 0.24); n = 66; I² = 0%) and V/P VT₂/LT₂ (SMD = 0.04 [95% CI -0.21, 0.29]; z = 0.32 (p = 0.75); n = 253; I² = 0%). Risk of bias for randomized controlled trials was rated as of some concern and for non-randomized controlled trials as low risk of bias (two studies) and some concerns (one study).

Conclusions

POL is superior to other TIDs for improving VO₂peak, particularly in shorter duration interventions and highly trained athletes. However, the effect of POL was similar to that of other TIDs on the remaining surrogates of endurance performance. The results suggest that POL more effectively improves aerobic power but is similar to other TIDs for improving aerobic capacity.

中文翻译：

---

极化与其他类型的耐力训练强度分布对运动员耐力表现的比较：荟萃分析的系统回顾

背景

最近有人提出，在提高耐力表现方面，极化训练强度分布（POL）优于其他训练强度分布（TID）方案。

客观的

我们的目的是系统地回顾和荟萃分析 POL 与其他 TID 在耐力表现方面的证据。

方法

遵循 PRISMA 指南。该协议已在 PROSPERO 注册（CRD42022365117）。检索了截至 2022 年 10 月 20 日的 PubMed、Scopus 和 Web of Science，以查找在成人和年轻人中进行 ≥ 4 周的研究，将 POL 与其他 TID 干预措施在V O ₂峰值、计时试验 (TT)、力竭时间 (TTE)方面进行比较) 或第二通气阈值或乳酸阈值时的速度或功率 (VT ₂ /LT ₂时的 V/P )。使用 RoB-2 和 ROBINS-I 评估偏倚风险。证据的确定性通过 GRADE 进行评估。使用标准化均值差异通过随机效应荟萃分析对结果进行分析。

结果

十七项研究符合纳入标准（n  = 437 名受试者）。汇总效应估计表明 POL 在改善V O ₂峰值方面具有优越性（SMD = 0.24 [95% CI 0.01, 0.48]；z  = 2.02 ( p  = 0.040)；11 项研究，n  = 284；I ²  = 0%；高确定性证据）。然而，优越性仅出现在较短的干预措施中（< 12 周）（SMD = 0.40 [95% CI 0.08, 0.71; z  = 2.49 ( p  = 0.01); n  = 163; I ²  = 0%）以及训练有素的运动员（SMD = 0.46 [95% CI 0.10, 0.82]；z  = 2.51（p  = 0.01）；n  = 125；I ²  = 0%）。其余的耐力表现替代指标同样受到 POL 和其他 TID 的影响：TT (SMD = – 0.01 [95% CI -0.28, 0.25]; z  = − 0.10 ( p  = 0.92); n  = 221; I ²  = 0%) , TTE (SMD = 0.30 [95% CI – 0.20, 0.79]; z  = 1.18 ( p  = 0.24); n  = 66; I ²  = 0%) 和 V/P VT ₂ /LT ₂ (SMD = 0.04 [95 % CI -0.21，0.29]；z  = 0.32（p  = 0.75） ；n  = ²⁵³ ；随机对照试验的偏倚风险被评为值得关注的问题，非随机对照试验的偏倚风险被评为低偏倚风险（两项研究）和一些令人担忧的偏倚风险（一项研究）。

结论

POL 在改善V O ₂峰值方面优于其他 TID ，特别是在较短持续时间的干预和训练有素的运动员中。然而，POL 对耐力表现的其余替代指标的影响与其他 TID 的影响相似。结果表明，POL 可以更有效地提高有氧能力，但与其他 TID 提高有氧能力的效果相似。