I tried the Easy Interval Method so you don’t have to

At my peak, I had similar times.

Should have been 6x1000m at 3:51 -4:05, recovery 800m at slow poke 4:30ish, don't forget the walking steps.

That's the meat and potatoes, 3x per week. No moderate run with surges crap you threw in there. The 400s and 200s are joke easy but since you a bit older, should have probably slowed those down a bit. I do plenty of walking during the 200s.

After doing that base for months then you would add anaerobic stuff, maybe a moderate run with surges or some racing.

Nowhere in the book does it say feel exhausted by all the intervals and then lower the 1000s to MP+30. MP + 30 is probably less than 80% of max heart rate, that's not even EIM. That's like easy 1000m jog instead.

You know you are doing it right when you look forward to every workout and midway through a workout you feel like you flying during the fast part. Like you are a machine and it's joke easy to keep that pace up and you desperately want to be unleashed. But you hold back because gotta do it again tomorrow or the day after. You doing it right also when you can add the 400s/200s on the same evening as a 6x1000m in the morning and feel normal the next day. It's that easy.

That's EIM.

Yes at least 04:10 (around Marathon pace for OP) and 03:51-04:05 are the values from the table. However, the easy interval (off phase) should be done really easy, and not at 04:30min/km! That is a mistake to avoid.

I did once also both mistakes: had the ON pace too low and the OFF pace too high. :)

If you can't do it at the beginning reduce interval duration (600m-800m instead of 1000m) or amout of intervals (4-5 times instead of 6).

Remark: If you do the ON interval at a little bit higher intensity and reduce the rest duration you have the Norwegian model -> better imo (for 5k to HM)

At 65 I find I have to do a modified version, where I do put in a couple of days of easier (sometimes with small surges) of 3-4 miles at 7:30-8:15 for recovery.

Again, as a function of age, where LT moves much closer to V02 max pace, I can run the sessions as a continuous run fairly comfortably.

So for me, the most recent 200m session was 200m at average of :44.75 with 200m recovery in an average of 62.0 as a continuous run with warm-up and warm down also continuous other than - in this case - changing shoes after the warm-up.

On those I didn't reach LT heart-rate although I was close on the last one. HR was down to 128 after first 400m of warm down.

I felt like I could probably do 20 in 45.0 average, although the do feel a bit like individual sprints (again age related I think).

These are supposed to be between 3000m and 1500m pace. For me the pace would be fast for 3000m (11:11 pace - age graded 8:36) and slow for 1500m (5:36 pace - age graded 4:18), so I would guess they are about right.

The 1000m reps do feel very slow, as for years I would do 5 or 6 x 1000m at 5000m pace, and these are now supposed to be slower than 10k pace. I run those with 800m in 2 min recovery, again as a continuous run.

What I do find - again age related - is that what is OK by HR is not Ok for the legs. So I can do a session which is fine by HR, but the legs aren't recovered the next day. I do find the same with steady runs - 4 miles at 7:40 (equal to 5:40 age graded) is only 70% HR, but isn't always one that I have full recovery from the next day.

Overall, after about 9 months, I will say that using the sessions has been beneficial, as keeping to aerobic sessions as stopped the "quick peak, plateau, crash" pattern that I've been used to.

Objectively, my Garmin has me at the highest V02 score that I've had for a while, and I did run a 10k time trial at 41:00 pace, with HR still only hitting LT pace (about 10 beats short of maximum).

It probably needs some intelligent application to suit individuals, but I think it does leave to a more sustainable fitness level.

I think martidani meant a time of 4:30 for 800m for recovery, not recovery at 4:30 pace.

As an old guy, I find the fast end of the 1000m pace very comfortable, and I'm running 6x1000m with 800m recovery in 4:00 (5:00 per 1k pace).

I do have to stress that I've been running intervals/reps for 50 years, so very conditioned to that.

I don't think I've got the sessions quite slow enough to do one every day (hard at 65), but they are keeping me good at aerobic pace for all my sessions (unless I'm sharpening for a race), and it's got me fit enough for me to run a 41 min 10k (about 31:52 age graded) without ever hitting max HR.

Yeah I meant the whole recovery 800m in 4:30, which is 9 min mile pace. After some injuries and Covid and I am back down to 1000m in 4:15 and now the recovery 800m in 5:00.

I have done so many of these 6x1000s. And they always vary depending on my conditioning or the weather or if it's hilly and windy. Just two months ago I did a 1000m rep in 4:40!! It was hot and hilly.

The book has a chart with reccomended paces but it also gives you guidelines to use percentage of lactate threshold and heart rate. So in hot hilly conditions gotta use heart rate, I use 150bpm for the 1000m and back down to 120 for the recovery (this is going to vary depending on your max heart rate/lt). And thus I literally have over 100 sessions of heart rate to 150ish for the 1000m back down to 120ish for the 800m.

OP can post some of his heart rate graphs and we are going to clearly see that's not EIM.

One of the things I really disliked about the EIM is the sense that, like Communism, it can never fail. It can only be failed. If the EIM doesn't work for someone, they must have done it wrong.

Yeah, I can read the chart on p. 65 too. Like I said, when I ran that pace, I couldn't recover by the next day, even with slow recovery jogs. 9:00/mile was typical. Throwing in a water break was typical. It didn't help. The only way I could recover by the next day was to run even slower than the slowest specified pace.

I threw in there? It's on the schedule on p. 90: "endurance run with surges." As defined on p. 60: "Moderate endurance run of around 8-12 km with surges." Or as it says, "This is a relaxed, moderately paced run.... Every 5-7 minutes there is a surge for 30-60 seconds up to your easiest 1000m interval pace."

Um yeah no. What I'm trying to tell you is that my experience with the EIM just plain sucked. It didn't work and I'm done trying to make it work. It proposes a schedule of workouts and recoveries that just didn't fit my physiology. If I hit the paces, I can't recover. If I slow down the paces so I can recover, I don't hit the target HR or get a useful training stimulus. If I take more time between workouts to recover, I'd end up running 3 days a week. If it works for you, great. But I tried the experiment of one, and it failed.

Some of the more advanced schedules have a moderate run with surges. I threw one maybe every few weeks to add miles.

You were doing three of those per week. That's not EIM, that's what I am trying to tell you.

You invented your own running program and didn't have success. We move on.

I'm at a similar level to OP (I've run low 36 10K and recently did a 09:57 3000m) and my recoveries for 1000s often end up being closer to 05:00 min/km. Even slower for 400s and 200s (perhaps 05:30 min/km). I would never be able to sustain 04:30 "recovery jogs".

I think it's great that you shared your experience. I just don't like the unnecessarily harsh judgement: "I tried it so you don't have to" (that is: "it will be a waste of your time").

Some people (like myself) have had success with the method, some have not (like you).

The reasons for not having success might be physiological/mentality-related, but I think that the execution is a more likely culprit (not saying that you would have had great success, just that you would not have had such a miserable experience).

Anyway, I don't want to scare people away from the method, but try to guide them in a direction where they might be able to enjoy the method just like I have done (after my first failure, which was very much similars to yours).

Good luck in your future running endeavors!

I also have tried the EIM for about 9 months but hace stopped as my 10k times went slower. The total volume of training with EIM didn't decrease in my case. It was even a bit higher and then I was exepcting better results.

I followed the pace from the book for the different repetitions. So, doing this I became quite efficient at the pace of the 1000m from the book but had difficulties sustaining a longer harder effort like a 10k race.

One explanation could be that it was Covid times and because there were almost no races I couldn't have this stimulus. Maybe with a race every 2 weeks it would have worked much better.

Just my experience. Now back to more conventional training.

Exactly this.

There is no Norwegian model. The Ingebrigtsens just use a modified version from the -70s and more frequent lactate measuring.

Some very interesting experiences in this thread. While I have had some initial success with this method (see my post on the first page), I do often wonder if a more traditional approach that uses some of the lessons learned from the EIM wouldn’t be more effective. I bring this up as, like the OP, I have struggled at times to recover from the sessions day to day and have started to have occasional bouts with insomnia (new for me). Not sure if this is a coincidence or a warning sign of overtraining. My performance in the EIM sessions and in my primary hard workout of the week has not been impacted by this quite yet, but it does concern me as I wonder if there is too much stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system day to day. I could potentially try to slow the paces down even further, especially since I’m doing several of these sessions very early in the morning on a moderately hilly dirt loop.

However, a modified approach might be to do 70 mpw with two workouts and a long run for the average post collegiate competitive runner. On all your easy and recovery days, instead of running slow for an hour straight, do 15/30/60 second surges every few minutes on all these runs to preserve economy and efficiency at fast paces. Then keep your standard tempo/threshold workout, vO2 max intervals, etc. Maybe mix in the surges to your long run as well. If I keep having the issues I noted above, I may switch to this type of approach.

I think maybe adaption has something to do with it. They do advise a gradual transition from a lot of steady state to EIM (maybe one or two sessions a week to start) and/or to do them at the slow ends of the range.

I might be a bit different as I came into it from 50 years of doing hard reps. Last year I still did 6x1000m with 90 sec recovery at 5000m pace.

So, for me, 6 x 1000m at somewhere around 10 mile pace is an easier session than I was previously doing. I'm fine doing those off 800m in 4 mins recovery (I think 5 min/1000m pace). On that, I'm actually holding back not to do the 1000m too quick. I'm only flirting with LT heart-rate at the end of those, where I used hit my max.

I do the 16x200m at a little faster than 3000m pace with 200m in 1 min recovery, and the 400m at a bit faster than 10k pace with 400m in 2 min recovery (again 5 min/1000m pace).

I've been doing this method for since last summer (although I do have some steady runs in between sessions due to age). I haven't raced, but I did their 10k race simulation (fast steady pace with 1 min surges every 6 mins) in 41:50 on a course with 175ft ascent/descent and HR never went above 152 (max is 165). I also ran a 9k time trial (after my target race was cancelled) at 41:00. At age 65 that's age graded around 31:40 for the race simulation and 31:20 for the time trial. Not spectacular, but better than my time as an open age runner and on a par with my best age graded times (including a couple of state age records).

As another objective measure, my Garmin is telling me that my V02 Max is as high as it's been in recent times.

I would note that as well as have had most of a lifetime as a 'hard-rep' trainer, I'm also physiologically a natural for reps (high v02 max, tending to fast-twitch, and genetically, a quick lactate clearer) - I remember in my 50s doing a 4 mile race, and the next week doing 4 miles of 200m hard/200m steady at only 10 seconds per mile slower. Actually, I was better rep runner than a racer!

I think, though without that background, it might just be a question taking steps backwards to go forwards with the EIM..

I've somewhat done this, as a concession to age. I've replaced my hard rep sessions with EIM sessions, so working aerobic rather than anaerobic systems (suspect I've been aerobically under developed my whole career), and then throw in recovery runs and steady runs with surges.

I definitely had problems with over-stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system when I was doing my very hard reps 2 or - when young - 3 times a week.

It's not an advanced schedule. It's the basic 6-day-a-week 10K program, right there on page 90. As I mentioned, I did this workout three times instead of once a week when I started because it was one of the few easy options. Once I hit reset, I did it only once a week, just as scheduled.

Let's pause here to point out how this is one of the things I most hate about the EIM. You try to modify it to make it work, and you get, "THat'S not thE REAL EIm!!!" Then you apply the program as stated and you get, "YoU haVe tO adAPt ThE pROGrAM tO ThE INdIviDUAL."

I think we can dig into why the EIM was such a dog of a program. At Boston last fall, my average HR was 158. At 1K, my HR was still below 150. In my last long MP tempo on a flat course, I was 5 miles in before I hit 150. I didn't get up to 157-158 until I was 11 miles in.

Now lets look at the EIM workouts. When I did 6 x 1K trying to hit the paces (still averaging just 6:40/mile, so close to but slower than MP), my HR was 148, so I was spending most of the time 5-10 beats below marathon heart rate and still not recovering by the next day. After I hit reset and slowed to sustainable paces, when I tried the workout again, my average pace was 6:54/mile for the 1K reps, with an average HR of 142. What a gigantic waste of time.

Which pretty much brings us back to the starting point. The EIM works for some people, but it was a horrible fit for me, and its grounding in physiology is so superficial that it doesn't understand why it works for some people and not others. Some people have mentioned fast twitch vs. slow twitch. In my case, it takes a relatively long time for my HR to get close to training targets, so here I'll agree with Daniels' criticism: short intervals with long rests mean little effective stimulus at the target HR.

I've adapted other training plans to my racing goals, but I just can't make this one work. Hopefully others will have more success.

You try to explain us that EIM does not work for you.

We try to explain you, that you did it wrong. :)

Are training to see heart rate numbers on your watch or are you training to race faster ..?! This is not a trick question…. Your heart rate numbers are not a ‘tachometer’ … but objectively and subjectively your pace of your efforts is a better gage.