Yes35, Most of your statements are incorrect. Canova was not coach of Kirui. Kirui just joined Canova's group for performing a long run. Rgearding the research: I am talking about 400m's . not 1 k's. And saying that I don't prescribe endurance runs for marathon of for aerobic development shows that you haven't read the book, or have skipped those parts.
CAA, EIM addresses running economy AND the aerobic functioning of the fast-twitch fibers. Most 'normal' runners got a more or less 50-50 distribution regarding FT and ST. With lots of easy runs you won't stimulate the aerobic FT fibers. Meanwhile it has been scientifically proven that 50-50 runners need more recovery time (Eline Lievens, Gent, Belgium). She confirmed my point of view that 50-50 runners need higher, aerobic paces to get adaptations regarding the aerobic functioning of the FT fibers. Also, San-Millan (physiologist) said that FT fibers need more training at moderate and fast paces, in order to use lactate and carbo as fuels (fins his graph on the internet).
Where in the research paper you citied in your book they compared easy intervals to steady runs? No need to answer because anyone can read the main research and see it has nothing to do with your method :)
For Kirui, you've been called out before on the Verhuel method thread. People questioned the link to Piet. There are so many articles online where Kirui was interviewed and mention to your method. In fact it was clear evidence that his success came from Canova.
I'm sorry but between what you say and what Canova says. Who do you think people will believe? ;)
For the long runs, I read the book and again you have long runs but these runs area broken with surges.
Is there any evidence that your method is better than traditional methods? No
Is there any evidence of any top elite runner that follows this approach? No
Can you prove long runs with surges more beneficial than traditional long runs? No
Do you think top elite runners (and their coaches) don't know what they are missing? No
Your method isn't new nor unique. I appreciate the time and effort in the book but please don't compare it to other methods and don't take credits from others.
Yes 35, let me make a Yes of some of your No. I have many messages of Piet de Peuter, in which he said he has been coaching (making schedules for) Kirui when he became world champion in 2017.
No scientific research, but so many runners reported having improved a lot after changing form 80/20 to EIM. Experiences are also a kind of proof (I quote Steve Magness).
Many runners like the changes in pace in a long run and said they feel fresher the next day.
Several elite masters ran WR's with the EIM: Silke Schmidt, Dan King, John van der Wansem. Bram Som was an elite 800m runner (1:43.5) who changed from more or less 80/20 (and regular injuries) to the EIM and equaled his 800 PB, beat his 400, 1000 and 1500m PB's... without getting injured.
And you are overlooking something crucial: the efficiency of a training approach or method is not demonstrated by the success of elite runners, but by how amateur runners improve and enjoy it. Talented elite runners will do well with almost any method that is properly executed under the guidance of an experienced coach. They train so much, do not work, and recover better, that even if they make mistakes, they will still succeed. The huge mistake that has been made for more than half a century is this: amateur runners copy the schedules of elite runners.” Stephen Seiler said (Youtube video): "Normal athletes should train like the world's best athletes". (Which is 80/20; sorry, Stephen, you are wrong, very wrong.)
I myself don't need to compare with other methods: many runners who apply the EIM are doing this for me (and prefer the EIM). Tom Shax (UK) wrote: "So, around 2-3 times more quality running, all on lower mileage (my recent marathon block averaged 57 miles a week), delivering PBs and feeling great while doing it. If this isn't the revolution then what is?"
Ben Hobson, Editor of UK Runner's World said: "I followed the easy interval method a couple of years ago with great results; I think it’s a truly innovate training approach that deserves more attention."
The approach works well if you want steady volume without draining yourself. Short repeats at relaxed effort keep your heart rate controlled and let you stack more quality days each week. You build rhythm and aerobic strength without the burnout that comes from hard interval blocks. Many runners see smoother progress because the sessions stay consistent and easy to repeat.
I think the back to back workout days whether the intensity is low or high are quite draining and you’re not going to get the full benefits. Now maybe if you wanted to do this approach I would recommend you do a faster workout day followed by an easier interval day and have an easy day or recovery day so maybe you do…
Where in the research paper you citied in your book they compared easy intervals to steady runs? No need to answer because anyone can read the main research and see it has nothing to do with your method :)
For Kirui, you've been called out before on the Verhuel method thread. People questioned the link to Piet. There are so many articles online where Kirui was interviewed and mention to your method. In fact it was clear evidence that his success came from Canova.
I'm sorry but between what you say and what Canova says. Who do you think people will believe? ;)
For the long runs, I read the book and again you have long runs but these runs area broken with surges.
Is there any evidence that your method is better than traditional methods? No
Is there any evidence of any top elite runner that follows this approach? No
Can you prove long runs with surges more beneficial than traditional long runs? No
Do you think top elite runners (and their coaches) don't know what they are missing? No
Your method isn't new nor unique. I appreciate the time and effort in the book but please don't compare it to other methods and don't take credits from others.
Yes35: Quote" For Kirui, you've been called out before on the Verheul method thread. People questioned the link to Piet. There are so many articles online where Kirui was interviewed and mention to your method. In fact it was clear evidence that his success came from Canova." My reply: A month ago I chatted with Geoffrey Kirui (Whatsapp) and he confirmed his success came from Piet de Peuter and he also said he trained with Canova now and then, but found Canova's schedule very heavy. He confirmed that he trained under guidance of Piet from 2013 to 2017.
Quote:" Is there any evidence that your method is better than traditional methods? No" My reply: Let’s look at it from the other side. There is plenty of evidence—based on runners’ experiences—that the 80/20 approach doesn’t work well for most amateur runners. And the double‑threshold Norwegian method? That’s also too demanding for most “normal” runners. The Norwegian Single Approach works much better. I’ve heard of runners who prefer NSA over EIM, while others prefer EIM over NSA. Check it out:
Quote: "Is there any evidence of any top elite runner that follows this approach? No" My reply: Yes. Piet de Peuter was coach of Kipyegon until her gold in 2016, coach of Kirui, and at this moment, coach of Faith Cherotich (world champion 3000m st ch). Several world-class masters apply the EIM: Dan King, Silke Schmidt. But this all is not important. What is important, is this:
When is a training approach truly suitable for most runners — the everyday athlete? Is it when the method is a scaled-down version of elite athletes’ schedules, developed through a kind of “survival of the fittest,” where many dropped out under the strain of intense training and only the strongest reached world-class level? Or is it when the approach connects with the majority of ordinary runners who juggle work, family, stress, and sometimes lack of sleep? Not surprisingly, I ‘vote’ for the latter! And this everyday runner’s approach could still serve as a foundation for talented athletes aiming to reach elite levels. So, NOT the other way around: starting with the whole 'pyramid', which is elite-level training, and then trying to cut it down to size in a rather arbitrary way to suit the majority of the ‘everyday’ runner. This is supported by the experiences of most of the following hundred runners. Among them many who regret having applied a 'traditional' way of training, like the 80/20 approach.
Where in the research paper you citied in your book they compared easy intervals to steady runs? No need to answer because anyone can read the main research and see it has nothing to do with your method :)
For Kirui, you've been called out before on the Verhuel method thread. People questioned the link to Piet. There are so many articles online where Kirui was interviewed and mention to your method. In fact it was clear evidence that his success came from Canova.
I'm sorry but between what you say and what Canova says. Who do you think people will believe? ;)
For the long runs, I read the book and again you have long runs but these runs area broken with surges.
Is there any evidence that your method is better than traditional methods? No
Is there any evidence of any top elite runner that follows this approach? No
Can you prove long runs with surges more beneficial than traditional long runs? No
Do you think top elite runners (and their coaches) don't know what they are missing? No
Your method isn't new nor unique. I appreciate the time and effort in the book but please don't compare it to other methods and don't take credits from others.
Yes35: Quote" For Kirui, you've been called out before on the Verheul method thread. People questioned the link to Piet. There are so many articles online where Kirui was interviewed and mention to your method. In fact it was clear evidence that his success came from Canova." My reply: A month ago I chatted with Geoffrey Kirui (Whatsapp) and he confirmed his success came from Piet de Peuter and he also said he trained with Canova now and then, but found Canova's schedule very heavy. He confirmed that he trained under guidance of Piet from 2013 to 2017.
Quote:" Is there any evidence that your method is better than traditional methods? No" My reply: Let’s look at it from the other side. There is plenty of evidence—based on runners’ experiences—that the 80/20 approach doesn’t work well for most amateur runners. And the double‑threshold Norwegian method? That’s also too demanding for most “normal” runners. The Norwegian Single Approach works much better. I’ve heard of runners who prefer NSA over EIM, while others prefer EIM over NSA. Check it out:
Quote: "Is there any evidence of any top elite runner that follows this approach? No" My reply: Yes. Piet de Peuter was coach of Kipyegon until her gold in 2016, coach of Kirui, and at this moment, coach of Faith Cherotich (world champion 3000m st ch). Several world-class masters apply the EIM: Dan King, Silke Schmidt. But this all is not important. What is important, is this:
When is a training approach truly suitable for most runners — the everyday athlete? Is it when the method is a scaled-down version of elite athletes’ schedules, developed through a kind of “survival of the fittest,” where many dropped out under the strain of intense training and only the strongest reached world-class level? Or is it when the approach connects with the majority of ordinary runners who juggle work, family, stress, and sometimes lack of sleep? Not surprisingly, I ‘vote’ for the latter! And this everyday runner’s approach could still serve as a foundation for talented athletes aiming to reach elite levels. So, NOT the other way around: starting with the whole 'pyramid', which is elite-level training, and then trying to cut it down to size in a rather arbitrary way to suit the majority of the ‘everyday’ runner. This is supported by the experiences of most of the following hundred runners. Among them many who regret having applied a 'traditional' way of training, like the 80/20 approach.
Klaas, your method is by many evidence clearly a very good one and even better than the NSM I see and say.👍 Then there is the Dancan method by me which seem to be something in the middle of the EIM and NSM when it comes to its structure and it's also very effective.
I really think hobbyjoggers, and others too of course, should test out the different methods mentioned and see what suits them best and give them the best individual results. Good luck with your EIM ! 🖐🧙♂️
Coach J.S , Swedish pro middle/ longdistance online running coach.
Yes35: Quote" For Kirui, you've been called out before on the Verheul method thread. People questioned the link to Piet. There are so many articles online where Kirui was interviewed and mention to your method. In fact it was clear evidence that his success came from Canova." My reply: A month ago I chatted with Geoffrey Kirui (Whatsapp) and he confirmed his success came from Piet de Peuter and he also said he trained with Canova now and then, but found Canova's schedule very heavy. He confirmed that he trained under guidance of Piet from 2013 to 2017.
Quote:" Is there any evidence that your method is better than traditional methods? No" My reply: Let’s look at it from the other side. There is plenty of evidence—based on runners’ experiences—that the 80/20 approach doesn’t work well for most amateur runners. And the double‑threshold Norwegian method? That’s also too demanding for most “normal” runners. The Norwegian Single Approach works much better. I’ve heard of runners who prefer NSA over EIM, while others prefer EIM over NSA. Check it out:
Quote: "Is there any evidence of any top elite runner that follows this approach? No" My reply: Yes. Piet de Peuter was coach of Kipyegon until her gold in 2016, coach of Kirui, and at this moment, coach of Faith Cherotich (world champion 3000m st ch). Several world-class masters apply the EIM: Dan King, Silke Schmidt. But this all is not important. What is important, is this:
When is a training approach truly suitable for most runners — the everyday athlete? Is it when the method is a scaled-down version of elite athletes’ schedules, developed through a kind of “survival of the fittest,” where many dropped out under the strain of intense training and only the strongest reached world-class level? Or is it when the approach connects with the majority of ordinary runners who juggle work, family, stress, and sometimes lack of sleep? Not surprisingly, I ‘vote’ for the latter! And this everyday runner’s approach could still serve as a foundation for talented athletes aiming to reach elite levels. So, NOT the other way around: starting with the whole 'pyramid', which is elite-level training, and then trying to cut it down to size in a rather arbitrary way to suit the majority of the ‘everyday’ runner. This is supported by the experiences of most of the following hundred runners. Among them many who regret having applied a 'traditional' way of training, like the 80/20 approach.
.....and I just want to add to the debate that the success of Kirui mainly came from Piet and not Canova's method.😉👍 Canova himself told in interview he had difficulty to understanding how it was possible for Kirui to run 2:06 marathon on 'just' 90 mpw or less... 😉😎
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.