Likewise, the study reiterates the effectiveness of polarized training. "Our study supports previous findings highlighting the importance of a high training volume, using a polarized training pattern with a large amount of LIT to reach world-class level in XC skiing."

---

Larry Lahodny
Owner, Gizmo Socks
Henderson, NV

I want to preface this by saying that my opinion is the Polarized training tends to be beneficial.

For clarification:
This is a retrospective case-study of what one individual athlete did and does not carry the same weight as an interventional study of a representative group of athletes for particular populations.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

Yes, nothing like confirmation bias. <rollseyes>

(Meta-analyses have demonstrated that elite athletes tend to train in a pyramidal, not polarized, manner.)

Thanks. Would you have an example of a recent study providing for such an empirical evidence (i.e. interventional study of a representative group)?

Thanks. Any recent references?

Review:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26578968

Interventional study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28824440

(Neither of which, IMO, really address the question of how you should train.)

This study is describing Marit Bjoergen.
The most successful xc-skier ever. To put it in perspective, Marit walked away from the 2018 olympics with 5 medals, two of them gold.
It is not secret what xc-skiers are doing and what it takes to become top level.

Is that Hi-lo (polarized)? Or pyramidal?

1. Pick your parents wisely (twice-over)

2. Train long and hard/hard and long.

If you trust the results of this review:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...MC4621419/figure/F1/

then X-C skiers seem to be about the only endurance athletes that consistently train in a polarized manner.

Thus, rather than representing "best practices" as has been ass u me d, what data on elite endurance athletes actually seems to show is that "there is more than one way to skin the training cat."

It will be what you in Norway call polarized. A lot of easy training and intervals twice a week.
Since xc-skiers are not running marathons they do not need to do any L2 running as an example. Lots of L1 on trails will do fine.
And of course they do rollerskiing in off season and strength.

Based on the results from the olympics. they must have done something right.

...and yet, where are the Norwegian swimmers? Distance runners? Speed skaters? Etc...

Winner. (not kidding)

Super simple.

The fact that the woman that looks like this has never been busted for steroids is a true God's miracle.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

Not sure what your question is but based on the results from the olympics Norwegian speed skaters got two gold.

Compared to how many by, say, the Dutch? Or South Korea in short track speed skating?

Look, everyone gets it, you (and Seiler) are proud of your (adopted) countrymens' and countrywomens' accomplishments. It is ludicrous, however, to argue that that somehow validates a particular approach to training. Traditions/opportunities/genetics of various populations have a huge impact on whether a country does/does not do well in a particular sport. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the "best practices" polarized approach that you (and Seiler) advocate really provides any particular group of athletes an advantage over other athletes (see examples above). Really, the whole argument you (and he) have staked out is so weak that I am surprised that anyone would be willing to put it out there...

Hey, it could be worse... somebody could be touting the performance of a teenager as if it really meant anything other than the fact that they have a lot of talent (and have worked hard to develop it, of course).

You sounds bitter. Did you wake up on the wrong side of the medal count this morning............?

Or are you just trying to sell books............?

I don't care who won how many medals. I also don't really care how many copies of TRWPM are sold (if I did, I wouldn't be so blunt).

What I do care about, though, is logical thought and reasoned arguments, something that I have never seen you offer. Instead, you routinely claim that polarized training is superior, based strictly on Norway's performance in one sport, while conveniently ignoring the lack of dominance (or even competitiveness) in other endurance sports, as well as the fact that most elite endurance athletes don't actually train that way.

Using ad hominem is not how you win argument. Andrew asked pertinent questions and I was interested in knowing how you would answer the because I was interested in the argument in question here. Was.

Damn I wish I had her arms !

Nature, nurture, or drugs?

Absent a positive drug test, I would give her (or anyone) the benefit of the doubt, and credit the first two.

No, Andrew reframed the argument to suit his premise and betrayed a bit of ignorance of speed skating on the process (which is fine), but at that point the agreement was of the rails already.

well put. Nature and nurture have been around a LONG time, Amazing performances (and physical characteristics) have also been around since well before PEDs.

---

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________