Letters to the Editor

Arne Guellich and colleagues1 have confirmed the effectiveness of “polarized training” for rowing performance as previously shown in other endurance sports.2 Guellich and colleagues stated that “possible mechanisms underlying a potential association between intensity polarization and later success require further investigation,” suggesting the absence of concluding evidence supporting the effectiveness of the polarized training. The key point is the “violation” of the specificity training principle. The paradox of this violation is that, despite the fact that competitive physiological demands are typically in those intensities close to or at VO2max levels, the most appropriate training intensities for performance enhancement seem to be at low (eg, VT1) and supramaximal intensities (eg, 115% VO2max). Subsequently, we speculate the presence of an underlying “adaptive conflict” where intensities between VT2 and VO2max are critical, suggesting that these intensities are critical for the organism or less profitable from a dose–response perspective. Similarly, we should reconsider a previous proposal of a “interference phenomenon” during concurrent strength and endurance training,3 which reinforces the notion of polarization and which seems highly effective in our own practical experience. From an evolutionary point of view, the survival of our Late Paleolithic ancestors depended on hunting and gathering.4 Therefore, it is logical to establish a link between the physical demands of our ancestors and gene regulation for furthering the understanding of the training adaptations of the human body. Given the polarized profile of Homo sapiens physical activities (walking, slow running, throwing, sprinting) in those ancient times, it might be suggested that our gene regulation could favor this polarized profile of trainability. From this perspective, the “homeostatic crisis” that develops during activities performed at intensities between VT2 and VO2max might well be an indicator of our genetic limitations for these metabolic demands. Moreover, the first ventilatory threshold might demarcate a “binary” threshold for autonomic nervous system recovery in highly trained runners.5 This model suggests a reduced tolerance to these workloads. Therefore, future studies should investigate the genetic expression of the physiological adaptations to polarized training compared with other forms of training.