Yes, I followed it for my first and only IM. Well, sort of followed it. I was only able to run for part of the middle ten weeks and more or less gave up swimming in that section through boredom. In the final ten weeks in lieu of running I either cycled or XC skied.

Came in at 12h 4 mins. Everything went absolutely by the book right up to halfway through the run. At that point the lack of running-specific conditioning in my legs was exposed brutally. Possibly could have come in anywhere between 10h30 and 11h 20 had I followed the program fully.

The nice things about it are (a) you just do what you're told and don't think too hard; (b) you can see the structure of the training blocks clearly, so always know what you're aiming for over the next couple of weeks. The obvious downside is that it won't get the very very best out of you.

---

He who understands the WHY, will understand the HOW.

Just have fun. Since your first IM, you will learn lots of stuff you could use for your second to do better.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Have used his program training for Ironman/ iron distance races in each of the last 3 years. It provides excellent structure and guidance. Some modifications made according to my own schedule and training needs. As a weaker cyclist, I probably could have done more cycling and less swimming. Don't have any other plans with which I can compare. If you are independent and disciplined I think you will find it good. Good luck.

Any age grouper that thinks they can do 5 consecutive weeks of 17, 18, 19, 19 and 20 hours, this is the plan for them.

I know 5 people that have done sub-12 for their first IM following that book.

I found the plans in that book to be too inflexible (read what Fink says about missing days), and way too many hours, like 20 hours for multiple weeks. But the philosophy is pretty sound, and it could probably be used to create a custom, dynamic plan for yourself that changes and adapts week-to-week.

Someone else asked about it a couple of weeks ago. Here's what I said in that thread:

I used it for my first IM.

I signed up for a IM on a whim, having never done a single triathlon, never swam a lap, not ran in 8 years, and never biked more than 100 miles.

I followed the intermediate plan religiously. Never missed a workout, never cut one short. It got me across the finish line with a smile on my face (~14 hours). So I considered that a success. I had plenty of fitness and felt confident that I would cross the finish line when the gun went off (especially considering this was only my 2nd triathlon ever - I did an olympic as my first as part of training plan).

I would have easily been a lot faster had I been experienced in triathlon. Lots of stupid things I did during race that I wouldn't have done today with more experience. But can't fault book for that.

Overall, I thought it was a solid plan, especially for a beginner or a bucket lister doing IM.

Some things are goofy; like he thinks a power meter is a waste and entire plan is based off max HR %'s, which he uses the 220-age to calculate.

I used it last year for IM CdA. Prior to that I had used Mike Plump of TriPower to successfully complete two other IM races.


Fink's plan will certainly get you ready.


What I liked: I personally prefer time based training so it was good from that angle. And I really liked the structure of his weekly training. I liked the fact that it was HR based training although I have gone back and forth on HR based to power/pace (e.g. endurance nation training). His zones are a little different and admittedly, I switched to Friel's zones about 1/2 way through. One thing I liked about Fink is that my running endurance was awesome. It was nothing to do a 9 mile run. However, all that zone 2 work made me an endurance monster with very little top end. It made doing the workouts easy and no excuse (easy to always do a z2 run vs interval work). I'm now focused on 5k speed and raising my FTP. So I give the plan a grade of A for getting me ready (physically).


What I didn't like: So based on the above, the lack of power advice (since I train and race with power) or HR zones that don't generally map to the convention wisdom on zones. I was able to coorolate power to his HR zones through some testing. And, I think the plan could benefit from less z2 work and a bit more z3/4 work (I'm currently following plans from Endurance Nation which I think are a better mix of trainig to get you ready for multiple distances.


Now, in terms of the race itself, I tried an experiment with my nutrition switching from all liquid which I had done in prior IMs to mostly solids. That plan failed. I still finished, but it was a rough race. Not the plans fault (other than his book lacks enough race nutrition advice).

Fwiw 12:00:09. But I'm an old lady.

I had Don Fink coach me on broadly an intermediate plan for my first full ironman in 2009. Had only done a couple of sprints the year before and a couple of Olys many years previously. PB on the Sprint was about 1.10.

I went 12.50 ish on a very hard course in Israel (israman). Winning time was around 10hours. I think I placed at the 25% marker.

Doing lots of Z2 is a very good way to play it if one is a relative beginner. Over time you / one will figure out if Z3 or Z4 training is beneficial - ie risk of injury and longer recovery time is worth the extra benefits.

Bottom line. Go for it. That also applies for any other orthodox method of training espousing consistency consistency and more consistency.

Hope this helps.

I've used the Just Finish program, there are too many hours in the other two.

I used it as a guide to support my first IM, where I had just over four months to prepare.

Finished in 11:18.

The competitive program looks to have far too many hours (as another post above points out) and the plan is very weekend heavy.

I think it does provide a good idea of structure, there's just too much training (for me)