Abstract
To improve performance in endurance sports, it is important to include both high-intensity and low-intensity training, but there is neither a universally accepted practice nor clear scientific evidence that allows reliable statements about the predominance of a specific training method. This randomized controlled trial compared the effects of a polarized training model (POL) to a low-intensity training model (LIT) on physiological parameters and mountain bike cross-country Olympic (XCO) race performance in eighteen competitive XCO athletes (17.9 ± 3.6 years). The superiority of one of the two methods could not be shown in this study. The results did not show statistically significant differences between POL and LIT, as both interventions led to slight improvements. However, a small tendency toward better effects for POL was seen for cycling power output during the race (4.4% vs. -2.2%), at the 4 mmol/L (6.1% vs. 2.8%) and individual anaerobic lactate threshold (5.1% vs. 2.3%), and for maximal aerobic performance (4.4% vs. 2.6%), but not for maximal efforts lasting 10 to 300 s. Despite the lack of significant superiority in this and some other studies, many athletes and coaches prefer POL because it produces at least equivalent effects and requires less training time.