View in EDS

Differences in Polarization Index of Elite and Subelite Adult Cyclists During a 12-Month Training Cycle.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Differences in Polarization Index of Elite and Subelite Adult Cyclists During a 12-Month Training Cycle.
Authors: Cove, Ben, Bennett, Hunter, Nelson, Maximillian J., Chalmers, Samuel
Source: International Journal of Sports Physiology & Performance; Dec2025, Vol. 20 Issue 12, p1665-1672, 8p
Subject Terms: EXERCISE physiology, STATISTICAL models, PEARSON correlation (Statistics), T-test (Statistics), PHYSICAL training & conditioning, EXERCISE intensity, DESCRIPTIVE statistics, CYCLING, ATHLETES, HEART beat, ENDURANCE sports training, CONFIDENCE intervals, DATA analysis software, COMPARATIVE studies, REGRESSION analysis, ADULTS
Geographic Terms: AUSTRALIA
Abstract: Objectives: Training-intensity distribution among cyclists is pivotal. Polarized training (POL), characterized by an 80%/20% distribution between low and high intensities, is often considered the preferred model. This study compared polarization index (Pi) values between elite and subelite cyclists and evaluated the relationship between Pi and 20-minute power changes over 12 months. Methods: Power (PWR) and heart-rate (HR) data were collected from 17 cyclists (9 = elite, 8 = subelite). Results: Pi was calculated for each annual quartile using PWR (Pi-PWR subelite = 1.95 [0.12], elite = 2.00 [0.44] arbitrary units) and HR (Pi-HR subelite = 1.94 [0.41], elite = 1.79 [0.75] arbitrary units). There was no group-by-time interaction (P =.188) for Pi-PWR. Pi-PWR was not different between the elite and subelite cyclists (P =.432), nor was there any change over the training year (P =.196). There was no group-by-time interaction (P =.295) for Pi-HR. Pi-HR was not different between the elite and subelite cyclists (P =.432), and there was no change over the training year (P =.502). There was no relationship observed in annual percentage change of 20-minute PWR and Pi-PWR (P =.795) or Pi-HR (P =.447). Conclusion: Elite cyclists demonstrated a Pi ≥2.0 during early mesocycles (Q1 and Q2) of training according to Pi-PWR, but this pattern was not observed when organizing Pi based on HR, whereas subelite cyclists did not demonstrate POL training (either via PWR or HR data) throughout the year. However, the training-intensity distribution of the groups did not statistically differ from each other. There was not a significant relationship between Pi and 20-minute PWR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of International Journal of Sports Physiology & Performance is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Complementary Index
Description
Abstract:Objectives: Training-intensity distribution among cyclists is pivotal. Polarized training (POL), characterized by an 80%/20% distribution between low and high intensities, is often considered the preferred model. This study compared polarization index (Pi) values between elite and subelite cyclists and evaluated the relationship between Pi and 20-minute power changes over 12 months. Methods: Power (PWR) and heart-rate (HR) data were collected from 17 cyclists (9 = elite, 8 = subelite). Results: Pi was calculated for each annual quartile using PWR (Pi-PWR subelite = 1.95 [0.12], elite = 2.00 [0.44] arbitrary units) and HR (Pi-HR subelite = 1.94 [0.41], elite = 1.79 [0.75] arbitrary units). There was no group-by-time interaction (P =.188) for Pi-PWR. Pi-PWR was not different between the elite and subelite cyclists (P =.432), nor was there any change over the training year (P =.196). There was no group-by-time interaction (P =.295) for Pi-HR. Pi-HR was not different between the elite and subelite cyclists (P =.432), and there was no change over the training year (P =.502). There was no relationship observed in annual percentage change of 20-minute PWR and Pi-PWR (P =.795) or Pi-HR (P =.447). Conclusion: Elite cyclists demonstrated a Pi ≥2.0 during early mesocycles (Q1 and Q2) of training according to Pi-PWR, but this pattern was not observed when organizing Pi based on HR, whereas subelite cyclists did not demonstrate POL training (either via PWR or HR data) throughout the year. However, the training-intensity distribution of the groups did not statistically differ from each other. There was not a significant relationship between Pi and 20-minute PWR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:15550265
DOI:10.1123/ijspp.2024-0436