Polarized vs. Threshold Training Intensity Distribution on Endurance Sport Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rosenblat MA, Perrotta AS, and Vicenzino B. Polarized vs. threshold training intensity distribution on endurance sport performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Strength Cond Res 33(12): 3491-3500, 2019-The objective of this review was to systematically search the literature to identify and analyze data from randomized controlled trials that compare the effects of a polarized training model (POL) vs. a threshold training model (THR) on measurements of sport performance in endurance athletes. This systematic review and meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016050942). The literature search was performed on November 6, 2016 and included SPORTDiscus (1800-present), CINAHL Complete (1981-present), and Medline with Full Text (1946-present). Studies were selected if they included: random allocation, endurance-trained athletes with greater than 2 years of training experience and VO2max/peak >50 ml·kg·min, a POL group, a THR group, assessed either internal (e.g., VO2max) or external (e.g., time trial) measurements of endurance sport performance. The databases SPORTDiscus, Medline and CINAHL yielded a combined 329 results. Four studies met the inclusion criteria for the qualitative analysis, and 3 for the meta-analysis. Two of the 4 studies included in the review scored a 4/10 on the PEDro Scale and 2 scored a 5/10. With respect to outcome measurements, 3 studies included time-trial performance, 3 included VO2max or VO2peak, 2 studies measured time-to-exhaustion, and one study included exercise economy. There was sufficient data to conduct a meta-analysis on time-trial performance. The pooled results demonstrate a moderate effect (ES = -0.66; 95% CI: -1.17 to -0.15) favoring the POL group over the THR group. These results suggest that POL may lead to a greater improvement in endurance sport performance than THR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.067 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.033 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".