Let’s say we have two cyclists doing the same workout, in this example, Lamarck. If both are unable to complete the workout, is it better to take a longer break during the rest periods by back pedaling for a minute or to simply knock down the intensity say 5% for the later intervals. By taking extra time, each interval is completed at 100%. By backing off the power 5% for two of the intervals, each rest period is only as long as prescribed, keeping HR up the entire time.
This happened recently with my friend and I and we are curious as to what the best way to “fail” a workout is. We’re thinking it also depends on the type of workout, as in, don’t take longer breaks during 30/30s or don’t back down the intensity too much for VO2 Max intervals.
I did give that a read. Seems like the options presented are to either drop intensity or not complete an interval entirely. I would imagine both options given above are preferred over an incomplete interval
If you’re extending the time between sets I think that is a stronger ‘finish’ of the workout than taking a break in the middle of a set.
For Lamarck this would mean taking a longer break between each interval would be a better way to complete the workout than keeping those breaks the same but taking short breaks in the middle of the intervals.
For something like Joe Devel it is the same - with the caveat that you aren’t skipping intervals or extending the 15 second rest periods - you’re extending the 7 minute between set rest periods
For me personally I feel hitting each interval is more important, however for a workout like Lamarck, I can see the benefit of keeping recovery to strickly 2 minutes in order to stress your body and force it to work with minimal recovery, even if the intensity of the subsequent intervals dropped up to 5%