Easy Interval Method

Hey Klaas, I bought the book and have been following the program, but I’m still a bit confused on exactly what my paces should be. Since you give race distance ranges for the paces for the athletes, does that mean you are targeting time. E.g. 1000’s should be done at the pace you would time trial 90 minutes, 400’s should be done at today’s 30 minute time trial pace, and 200’s should be done at today’s 9 minute time trial? Or is their another factor that determines interval pace?

Can you leave us a comment on this hot stuff mr Canova? It looks like you never

coached Kirui and Kipyegon? Just tried to send online training schedules to a world class runner

already coached by another coach , lol ! Online training schedules you yourself have told is a way impossible to coach Kenyan world class runners ?

Cann'tdova wrote:

Can you leave us a comment on this hot stuff mr Canova? It looks like you never

coached Kirui and Kipyegon? Just tried to send online training schedules to a world class runner

already coached by another coach , lol ! Online training schedules you yourself have told is a way impossible to coach Kenyan world class runners ?

Jan Stensson, stop this crap or I will get you banned.

This thread is about Klaas Lok and his book.

By the way Klaas, I have ordered your book recently (through a friend).Looking forward to reading it.

lexel wrote:

This week plan (5.May) is:

Mo: rest

Tu: 10x400m

We: 6x1000m

Th: 6x1000m

Fr: 15x200m

Sa: long run (total 19km): 6*1400m + 1 x 1000m (1400m pace is a little bit slower as 1000m pace)

Su: Trail run (300-400 hm), 12-14km

Changes to last week:

- I will do now a 10-20 sec walk break also before restarting a new interval (no flying start)

- recovery interval between 1000m will be easier (recovery pace instead of easy pace)

- 1000m interval pace will be based on mentioned paper and set to 1.1 * vLT (= 10% lower power output as velocity at LT)

- 2 days in a row 6x1000m, with the idea to see how that influences the second day

- Interval length for the long run will be reduced from 1600m to 1400m but 1x1000m will be added. The last 1000m a little bit faster than the 1400m.

lexel, what it the interval you use when doing the shorter distances, the 10x400m and the 15x200m?

Bythebay12 wrote:

Hey Klaas, I bought the book and have been following the program, but I’m still a bit confused on exactly what my paces should be. Since you give race distance ranges for the paces for the athletes, does that mean you are targeting time. E.g. 1000’s should be done at the pace you would time trial 90 minutes, 400’s should be done at today’s 30 minute time trial pace, and 200’s should be done at today’s 9 minute time trial? Or is their another factor that determines interval pace?

There is a chart right in the book for suggested interval times on your 10k fitness.

Trond Gudmundsson wrote:

lexel, what it the interval you use when doing the shorter distances, the 10x400m and the 15x200m?

For the 10x400m, the recovery interval is 400m and for the 15x200m it is 200m, unchanged to last week.

adad wrote:

Bythebay12 wrote:

Hey Klaas, I bought the book and have been following the program, but I’m still a bit confused on exactly what my paces should be. Since you give race distance ranges for the paces for the athletes, does that mean you are targeting time. E.g. 1000’s should be done at the pace you would time trial 90 minutes, 400’s should be done at today’s 30 minute time trial pace, and 200’s should be done at today’s 9 minute time trial? Or is their another factor that determines interval pace?

There is a chart right in the book for suggested interval times on your 10k fitness.

I know but the problem with the chart is that it assumes a line of fitness. Let me give you an example. One athlete runs 37:00 for 10k and 52 for 400m. Another runs 37:00 for 10k and 62 for 400. The first athlete will run a 3k in 10:00, the second in 10:30. The difference at marathon and half marathon will be even bigger.

lexel wrote:

Trond Gudmundsson wrote:

lexel, what it the interval you use when doing the shorter distances, the 10x400m and the 15x200m?

For the 10x400m, the recovery interval is 400m and for the 15x200m it is 200m, unchanged to last week.

Very easy running?

Bythebay12 wrote:

Hey Klaas, I bought the book and have been following the program, but I’m still a bit confused on exactly what my paces should be. Since you give race distance ranges for the paces for the athletes, does that mean you are targeting time. E.g. 1000’s should be done at the pace you would time trial 90 minutes, 400’s should be done at today’s 30 minute time trial pace, and 200’s should be done at today’s 9 minute time trial? Or is their another factor that determines interval pace?

Table is an orientation as mentioned already.

Paces for 200m, 400m and 1000m intervals can be found in chapter6, page57/58.

Bythebay12 wrote:

adad wrote:

There is a chart right in the book for suggested interval times on your 10k fitness.

I know but the problem with the chart is that it assumes a line of fitness. Let me give you an example. One athlete runs 37:00 for 10k and 52 for 400m. Another runs 37:00 for 10k and 62 for 400. The first athlete will run a 3k in 10:00, the second in 10:30. The difference at marathon and half marathon will be even bigger.

That's a fair point, but the chart does have ranges, and as mentioned in the book the charts paces are just a guide.

Approx paces would be half-full Marathon pace for 1ks, 10k pace for 400s, and 5k-mile for the 200s.

Ideally you'd just race/time trial a 10k early on, and then use one of the online calculators to get surrounding paces, then base your training of this.

Trond Gudmundsson wrote:

Very easy running?

Yes, recovery pace. Walk 10-20 sec after and before the next interval.

adad wrote:

Bythebay12 wrote:

There is a chart right in the book for suggested interval times on your 10k fitness.

I know but the problem with the chart is that it assumes a line of fitness. Let me give you an example. One athlete runs 37:00 for 10k and 52 for 400m. Another runs 37:00 for 10k and 62 for 400. The first athlete will run a 3k in 10:00, the second in 10:30. The difference at marathon and half marathon will be even bigger.

I think of it as Fastest Recoverable Pace.

How fast can you go today, when you know you have to do something similar tomorrow and the day after?

I'm a super slow twitch person - I can run sub 35 for 10k but don't think I've ever run under 66secs for 400m - so I can go a bit faster than the book suggests on the longer efforts but I tend to start the 200s a bit slower and work into them as 40secs really doesn't feel that easy to me... (It's getting easier though - repetition helps!)

lexel wrote:

Trond Gudmundsson wrote:

Very easy running?

Yes, recovery pace. Walk 10-20 sec after and before the next interval.

Thank you very much.

Hopefully I will get the book next week.

Bythebay12 wrote:

adad wrote:

There is a chart right in the book for suggested interval times on your 10k fitness.

I know but the problem with the chart is that it assumes a line of fitness. Let me give you an example. One athlete runs 37:00 for 10k and 52 for 400m. Another runs 37:00 for 10k and 62 for 400. The first athlete will run a 3k in 10:00, the second in 10:30. The difference at marathon and half marathon will be even bigger.

That is why there is a range for each 10k fitness level. I'd assume the 52 400m guy might be on the faster end of the range for the 200s and 400s and maybe on the slower side of the range for the 1000s and 2000s. It's not rocket science, and one should only run the pace that still makes for an easy aerobic workout.

adad wrote:

Bythebay12 wrote:

I know but the problem with the chart is that it assumes a line of fitness. Let me give you an example. One athlete runs 37:00 for 10k and 52 for 400m. Another runs 37:00 for 10k and 62 for 400. The first athlete will run a 3k in 10:00, the second in 10:30. The difference at marathon and half marathon will be even bigger.

That is why there is a range for each 10k fitness level. I'd assume the 52 400m guy might be on the faster end of the range for the 200s and 400s and maybe on the slower side of the range for the 1000s and 2000s. It's not rocket science, and one should only run the pace that still makes for an easy aerobic workout.

The faster 400 guy will not be on the faster end for the 400’s. He will be faster for the 200’s and slower for the 1000’s. I made their 10k time the same to make that point.

Now see why my question makes more sense than giving a range in case someone differs in their line of fitness from the one Klaas chose for the book. If we know the pace that each interval distance is targeting and then we can have the most accurate idea of interval pace

I haven't read the book (difficult and costly to get where I live) nor tried the method, but I have read a couple of threads about this. I believe Mr. Lok stated somewhere that everything is run by feel and that the suggested paces were suggested paces. So a self-aware runner will adjust for both a skewed line of fitness and differences in fiber type.

Klaas,

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.

It's pretty simple stuff. Just accumulate a significant amount of work at or just below LT. Running this as intervals is probably easier on both body and mind for the majority of athletes. I have read the book and, in my opinion, it is similar to how swimmers and cyclists train: lots of repeatable efforts simulating racing intensity and broken up to relieve monotony.

Long runs are long runs. Utilizing surges or incorporating intervals may be useful with regards to lactate shuttle (see George Brooks' and Peter Thompson's work) and possibly provides better stimulus than just slogging through two plus hours well slower than MP.

Stenson and you other coach fan boys just need to relax. There are many paths to the top and no coach working today is utilizing their own original ideas - just tweaking and refining old ones.

Casualty of Pork wrote:

It's pretty simple stuff. Just accumulate a significant amount of work at or just below LT. Running this as intervals is probably easier on both body and mind for the majority of athletes. I have read the book and, in my opinion, it is similar to how swimmers and cyclists train: lots of repeatable efforts simulating racing intensity and broken up to relieve monotony.

1) Long runs are long runs. Utilizing surges or incorporating intervals may be useful with regards to lactate shuttle (see George Brooks' and Peter Thompson's work) and possibly provides better stimulus than just slogging through two plus hours well slower than MP.

2) Stenson and you other coach fan boys just need to relax. There are many paths to the top and no coach working today is utilizing their own original ideas - just tweaking and refining old ones.

You addresses a lot of interesting points.

1) I did the long run in the past as easy continues run. But this run addressed mostly only the slow twitch fibers (type 1 fibers). If had not the feeling that the type 1 fibers got tired and the intermediate fibers (type 2a fibers) were taking over more and more. Opposite to the interval methode. Much more stimulus is for sure a more intense running in between (intervals), You address more intermediate type 2a fibers and use the easy pace in between to recover. So the overall load is similar, but at the end of the day more different muscle fibers got recruited.

2) True and there is a lot of indivual response to a training program. The key or problem is to try to find a good training method working for yourself.