
PS - I think the place where I have noticed improvement is actually on the UT1 rows. I am handling them much better than when I started the IP.
Yes, most of the IA is endurance and technique, but the last month or so provides the know-how and control for racing. So the surprise can be in the right direction.does the IP eventually reveal who you really are with a nice surprise
I guess different strokes for different but for me the IP seems a better bet when there is a known race 2k goal 3 to 6 months in the future.jamesg wrote:Yes, most of the IA is endurance and technique, but the last month or so provides the know-how and control for racing. So the surprise can be in the right direction.does the IP eventually reveal who you really are with a nice surprise
It would be hard to go back to the beginning if you are really fast but if you have more potential improvement then you could go back to 24 more weeks but recalibrate to a new goal - say 6:50 rather than the 7:00 you had achieved and this would change the paces of all the sessions. There seems a lot of logic behind the progressive changes and the ramping up of intensity as it progresses. I guess I have never done a lot of UT2 so the UT1 stuff has suited. The early weeks are interesting but boring - lots of base stuff. If you are pretty fit you could do a 16 weeks and shorten that or you could start in at week 8 of a 24w I guess. (My view may change entirely if things don't go to plan in a few weeks though!!)Bloodbuzz Corio wrote:Glenn what settings are you planning to use after your race? Back to 24 or 26 weeks and start again?
One of the things that I've been interested to see from both your and Lindsay's posts over the last few weeks is an almost complete absence of UT2 and a lot of UT1 - I did dial up a 26/6 plan for myself to see what it looked like and was interested that there was no AT till week 4 and no TR till week 8.
I think that different people will handle it differently depending on their strengths and weaknesses - sprinty or steady types. I used a HR, SR and prescribed pace/watts depending on the session and tried to stick to what was suggested but some off the numbers just didn't stack up for me of course.GJS wrote:Glenn, Lindsay. How do you guys manage those sessions above UT1? Go at the prescribed pace/ wattage? As hard as you think you can manage? Do you ditch the HR all together given cardiac lag?
Thanks Gary - 2 weeks today for us! The IP does leave a little doubt in your mind about exactly where you are with things compared to the PP where you get benchmarks on each session every 3 week cycle so we wont know for sure until it is done - there is a bit off faith involved in sticking to the plan.GJS wrote:Thanks, gents. Very helpful. I've been thinking about how to progress and aspects of the IP are very appealing. It provides, it seems to me, a pretty manageable introduction to rowing at around threshold and quicker: currently I'm happy above 2:00 doing purely aerobic stuff and enjoy paces below 1:40 but do not venture into 1:40 - 2:00 territory. I think you both are racing soon: Good luck!