Easy Interval Method

lexel wrote:

Dr Pepper wrote:

3. I liked most of the read, except for the 'reactivity' jargon. I get what he's trying to say about having the legs feel better/fresher and being able to switch gears... but it just feels like he's selling a pyramid scheme product or something like essential oils haha! I just kind of ignore that part.... great read... I recommend giving it a try.

(...)

regarding reactivity:

'When making a stride and landing on one foot, your muscles, tendons and foot arch are being stretched. This causes a certain pretension which helps to ‘propel’ you forwards in the next stride. This elasticity is also called reactivity. With mainly doing easy interval training, your reactivity will be better than when performing mainly steady state training and hence your race times will improve. '

running rebuild wrote:

AndySmith wrote:

The title of the book in Dutch is the Souplessmethode - souplesse is a word that you often hear in cycling circles that I think directly translates to 'suppleness' but actually means a lot more than that. It's kind of the smoothness of the pedal stroke and the ability to generate power with grace, and create accelerations without huge outward displays of effort.

There's a page about it the velominati site. This is what they say about Jacques Anquetil:

His fluidity on the bike exemplified Souplesse:

--A Magnificent Stroke is more than pushing or pulling on the pedals. The stroke flows from the core and hips, driving the pedals round and belying the effort to do so.

--Feet sweep the pedals around in perfect revolutions, one leg cannot be distinguished from the other – they work as one to counter and balance the forces to drive the machine ever faster forward.

--The legs can not do their work without the arms, the lungs, the chest, the heart, the mind. Each unit functions independently to do its work, yet feeds seamlessly into the other. In a phrase: Fluidly Harmonic Articulation.

--Move to the V-Locus; the body is folded such that legs, arms, and chest overlap but do not intersect. Knees tucked in, shoulders hunched, wrists rolled inwards, elbows angled such that the knees only just slip inside them with each revolution of the cranks.

--Face calm, eyes cooly focussed up the road; a grimace is energy that is better spent on turning the pedals.

So I think the whole concept of 'reactivity' is basically a translation of souplesse, and it's a bit more ethereal than ground contact time at a certain pace etc, but more about the ability to generate speed and acceleration without too much outward effort

I like this description of the suppleness form synergy overall but I'd add something else to the concept of reactivity.

Unlike cycling, In running you get the impact forces of your legs hitting the ground on each stride. Reactivity is also about how you store this energy and how much can you use "for free" to propel you forward without expending more energy. I recall reading that Kangaroos have such great elastic mechanisms that they actually use less oxygen bounding at faster speeds than at slower speeds. The impact is doing more of the work for them.

Lok points out that the elasticity of your muscles and tendons get deadened by lots of long slow mileage. You don't get as much bounce or spring. Some people are naturally more reactive--there's variation in tendon length/density etc--this is one reason why some people at the same vo2 max differ in their economy. But some of this can be trained and improved. The big importance about reactivity and the easy interval method compared to other programs is that training isn't only about aerobic development. If you can train your reactivity to it's full potential you can go faster for "free" at any given aerobic level before you start building up lactate. Lok pointed out that through constant easy repetition at faster paces he had trained his reactivity so much that he had lower levels of lactate than many other runners at a given pace. This allowed him to run a 52.5 last lap in a fast 10k despite the fact that he had slower relative footspeed than other elites (through work he got it down to 12.5 100m which is still not that fast comparatively) he also ran a 3:38 1500m and sub 4 mile. I don't have the book in front of me now so this is from memory but I think the times are pretty close.

so when "old and..." is trying to measure reactivity he needs to bring in the aerobic component. It isn't just about reducing ground contact time or stride length. It's how much impact energy is being reused for "free" without additional stress on the aerobic system.

I bought the book Easy Interval Method by Klaas Lok a couple months ago. As a masters runner I was already thinking along these lines. It was harder to keep up high mileage and it was deadening my legs more. I thought I needed to do faster work more often. I think this system and the schedules in Loks book accomplishes this quite well. Up to half the mileage is somewhat faster work but most of it is not that stressful--under lactate threshold. It's really fascinating that after a 10k total of easy intervals and recovery jogs, my legs feel much fresher the next day than after just a 10k steady state slog.

CAA wrote:

I like the sound of EIM and would really like to see a Daniels comparison/critique of it.

For example, Daniels focuses on time at VO2max or time at LT, taking into account rest duration and time needed to ramp back up on each effort. I can't argue with his logic, and end up thinking anything different must necessarily be less effective. But maybe that's focusing too narrowly on selected (if important) physiological components and not focusing enough on others (elasticity/reactivity, form, economy). A lot of EIM looks like Daniels speed reps - 200s/400s at mile pace - which seem easy enough that it doesn't feel like they have much training effect.

Does it come down to: EIM primarily trains economy and Daniels primarily trains VO2max/LT? If so, what determines which approach is better suited to an individual runner: age, fast/slow twitch, inherent strengths/weaknesses, or just personal preference?

CAA wrote:

I like the sound of EIM and would really like to see a Daniels comparison/critique of it.

For example, Daniels focuses on time at VO2max or time at LT, taking into account rest duration and time needed to ramp back up on each effort. I can't argue with his logic, and end up thinking anything different must necessarily be less effective. But maybe that's focusing too narrowly on selected (if important) physiological components and not focusing enough on others (elasticity/reactivity, form, economy). A lot of EIM looks like Daniels speed reps - 200s/400s at mile pace - which seem easy enough that it doesn't feel like they have much training effect.

Does it come down to: EIM primarily trains economy and Daniels primarily trains VO2max/LT? If so, what determines which approach is better suited to an individual runner: age, fast/slow twitch, inherent strengths/weaknesses, or just personal preference?

CAA wrote:

I like the sound of EIM and would really like to see a Daniels comparison/critique of it.

For example, Daniels focuses on time at VO2max or time at LT, taking into account rest duration and time needed to ramp back up on each effort. I can't argue with his logic, and end up thinking anything different must necessarily be less effective. But maybe that's focusing too narrowly on selected (if important) physiological components and not focusing enough on others (elasticity/reactivity, form, economy). A lot of EIM looks like Daniels speed reps - 200s/400s at mile pace - which seem easy enough that it doesn't feel like they have much training effect.

Does it come down to: EIM primarily trains economy and Daniels primarily trains VO2max/LT? If so, what determines which approach is better suited to an individual runner: age, fast/slow twitch, inherent strengths/weaknesses, or just personal preference?

nebraska2020 wrote:

Klaas, I also have a question (I haven't read the book yet, but do plan to when I am able, so I apologize if the answer is in there);

I have tried a couple of weeks doing something roughly like EIM, and I like it a lot, although I am pretty sure that I overcooked it which has resulted in this question;

If you prescribe reps/ recoveries of 200,400,1000m at paces for an elite then it is time or distance at a certain intensity level. I understand that for a much less developed athlete you prescribe less reps/ slower paces, but the workout is then something markedly different as the time required to cover the distance is so much greater i.e. you have a much longer period of time at a lower intensity and so this is a different proposition to that being used by a more advanced athlete. Would it not make more sense for a less developed athlete to do a time based interval and the same intensity i.e. both an elite and the other athlete would run a similar amount of time in which an elite covers 400m, 1000m etc and both would be working at the same individual effort level, but the less developed athlete would obviously be covering less ground ?

bencrush wrote:

Klaas, I bought your book a few weeks ago and have enjoyed digesting it. I'm 46 years old, 5'9", and weigh 235lbs. Working to build my endurance, but finding it impossible to jog the "rest" intervals. Walking the rest interval is the only way I can perform the workouts currently. I'm much more of a fast twitch (long time lifter) type. My endurance is pretty terrible and my 5K time is about 40:00 right now. So I've been using the paces from the 10K 40:00 table to figure out my workouts. I've simply doubled the time listed for the distance and used that for training.

Basically, I want to ask you if walking the rest intervals (until my condition improves) will have a positive training effect in my poor aerobic shape. Or should I file the book away and revisit it in a year or so after building up a lot more endurance?

To show you how much my endurance erodes as the distance increases here are some examples, all performed in a 30 day period.

200 meters - 39 seconds

400 meters - 01:40

800 meters -04:39

1 mile - 10:21

1.5 mile - 18:30

5K - 40:24

Klaas Lok wrote:

nebraska2020 wrote:

Klaas, I also have a question (I haven't read the book yet, but do plan to when I am able, so I apologize if the answer is in there);

I have tried a couple of weeks doing something roughly like EIM, and I like it a lot, although I am pretty sure that I overcooked it which has resulted in this question;

If you prescribe reps/ recoveries of 200,400,1000m at paces for an elite then it is time or distance at a certain intensity level. I understand that for a much less developed athlete you prescribe less reps/ slower paces, but the workout is then something markedly different as the time required to cover the distance is so much greater i.e. you have a much longer period of time at a lower intensity and so this is a different proposition to that being used by a more advanced athlete. Would it not make more sense for a less developed athlete to do a time based interval and the same intensity i.e. both an elite and the other athlete would run a similar amount of time in which an elite covers 400m, 1000m etc and both would be working at the same individual effort level, but the less developed athlete would obviously be covering less ground ?

Hi,

A very good point! I address this in the book: Eg, 1000m can be reduced to 800, 2000m to 1 mile; or you can run on time (and feel) on a trail in the forest, park or on the road. Also for example: I suggest running 90 secs in the forest etc (or 80 as I did) instead of running 400m on the track.