N=1 experiment

I've been conducting a specific experiment in terms of my training periodization and content – an evolved model of polarized training some might say. First, it is important to notice that this is an N=1 experiment at this stage. Thus, the results are inconclusive even if, in my mind, they are promising and have yielded gains for me.

This experiment is to find out whether something I’ve worked on has actually potential in real world. Reading about the countless optional training methods is mind-boggling and there is always another reference available, and even this is continuous working in progress.

Having used the traditional linear model for periodization and a polarized methodology for the shorter term, I came out with this idea of multidimensional polarization, where macrocycle lasts from 3-5 weeks and a microcycles are 6-8 days long. The idea is in the three different types of microcycles: recovery, normal and load (significantly tougher than a normal one). At typical four week macrocycle would consists a recovery, two normal and a load cycle:

That idea hails from personal experiences and my lengthy discussion with other endurance athletes. In essence, I've experienced the following cycle many enough times: adding training load progressively lead me to fade on the final week before recovery block. However, not enough and I was too eager to train already before midweek during recovery period. So, I trained and faded again. I think many can relate to this experience.

Here we soon begin to suffer from too monotonous, invariable training and thus, not getting the benefits out. Training stalls and becomes routinely and dull.

What I've done is created a training cycle where I have a steady program for two weeks leading to a week that aims to overload for a short and controlled – in a sense periodical crash cycles. After reaching the load, I rest for the following week – and quite happily so. Essentially polarizing not only the session content, but also in bigger picture. However, how the training is distributed, finding the balance between the microcycles and identifying balance between volume and intensity is highly individual.

Here are some thoughts upon my experience during these three months:

General

• This has made the normal weeks feel easy, even if the training load is there
• Training is variable and thus, the training stimulus is variable
• I've really learned to enjoy the hard cycles and easy cycles
• The system is highly adaptable (e.g. cold, missed sessions etc.)

Physiology

• I've taken 15s of my kilometre pace in my running test (*)
• I’ve cut 12s from CSS pace in swimming (*)
• The stimulus is variable
• I'm starting to feel like my old self on bike
• I’ve adapted my body to handle tough sessions even with severe fatigue and not compromising long term recovery

Psychology

• I'm more confident now.
• I know I can go beyond my own expectations
• I've learned to control my fatigue emotionally
• I've lost my anxiousness for going really hard
• I'm more relaxed when it comes to single sessions and able to look at the big picture

Recovery

• Having trashed myself through a cycle has not been blind loading only
• I have monitored my recovery status and kept eye on certain HRV indicators
• Nutrition plays a role in successfull adaptation to this system

After a period of recovery, I can’t wait to get goin' again tomorrow or day after. I will also publish a Finnish version once it is ready.

(*) The gains are not only subject to training stimulus, but also technical development in terms of efficiency and ability