Polarized running training adapted to versus contrary to the menstrual cycle phases has similar effects on endurance...

This study compared the effects of polarized running training adapted to the menstrual cycle (MC) phases versus polarized training adapted contrary to the MC on endurance performance and cardiovascular parameters.

Thirty-three naturally menstruating, moderately trained females (age: 26 ± 4 years; BMI: 22.3 ± 3.2 kg/m²; $$ O_2max/rel: 40.35 ± 4.61 ml/min/kg) were randomly assigned to a control (CON) and intervention (INT) group. Both groups participated in a load-matched eight-week running training intervention. In the INT, high-intensity sessions were aligned with the mid and late follicular phase, low-intensity sessions with the early and mid-luteal phase, and recovery with the late luteal and early follicular phase. In the CON, high-intensity sessions were matched to the late luteal and early follicular phase, and recovery to the mid and late follicular phase. Endurance performance and cardiovascular parameters were assessed at baseline and after the intervention.

Twenty-six females completed the intervention. A repeated measures ANOVA determined no time × group interaction effect for any parameter. A significant time effect was found for maximal oxygen uptake (F(1,12) = 18.753, p = 0.005, η_p² = 0.630), the velocity at the ventilatory threshold one (F(1,12) = 10.704, p = 0.007, η_p² = 0.493) and two (F(1,12) = 7.746, p = .018, η_p² = .413).

The training intervention improved endurance performance in both groups, with no further benefit observed from the MC-adapted polarized training in a group-based analysis. Replications with an extended intervention period, a larger sample size, and a more reliable MC determination are warranted.