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

Please make a Deno sub forum where he can post music videos and talk to himself. Kind of like a rubber room on the internet.

Well, how did things go at Boston?

Not great for me unfortunately. I was lucky to start with the pro field (incredible experience) thanks to prior performances but this was a bad choice. I got dropped immediately and pretty much ran the entire marathon by myself. I would say my race was still better than my half marathon 7 weeks prior once you factor in course difficulty and headwind, but I think I'll need more time with EIM for it to improve my fitness. After some recovery, I am planning to follow the build up period schedule for 8-12 weeks with no racing and then reassess where I am at.

In the 6 weeks with EIM so far, I have noticed two positives: (1) my stride is springier and more relaxed, and (2) I have definitely detrained my anaerobic system. I think I just need more time to build my aerobic system before better race performances start to show up!

We will see how it goes, maybe I will consider a last chance OTQ attempt at CIM if I start to feel fit after the build up period!

Late to this thread. I find EIM is actually great for getting people IN shape. Instead of going for 20-40 minute super slow easy runs, why not go to the track and do some 200s(200s), or 400s(400s)? This allows some turnover, less boredom, and working across some pace zones.

Once the runner is in better shape, they can move to a more effective program.

Agree.

I disagree. I think you are missing the point. Plenty of long-time runners (John Walker, Steve Scott, Ron Clarke, Grete Waitz, El Guerrouj) did sub-threshold tempo runs almost every day, plus short striders and sprints, plus regular anaerobic intervals 1-2 times a week. If we observe the Norwegian method, it is a more scientific and differently structured development of this.
As in the book, Klaas recommends 1-2 km easy intervals quite a few times a week at certain times, which I think is a similar stimulus to a progressive marathon pace run. Combining this with one race or anaerobic type workout per week and stirders is pretty similar to the training of the runners mentioned above (sub-threshold running several times per week and limited race pace running). The only difference is less overall weekly volume, but this can be compensated for with doubles.
I'm not saying it's the most efficient method in the world, but I do think it's possible to run elite times at the world level (with the right talent, increased training volume and years of training, of course), and the old times of 3.38s and 7.51s and 13.30s are equivalent to a good few seconds faster in today's conditions.
All in all, I think the point of the method is that it structures aerobic endurance development differently and you don't run intuitively increasing marathon paces like the racers of the 70s and you don't use measuring devices to do large amounts of aerobic intervals like the Norwegians, but because of the relatively large rest periods you can run up to 40+ km longer partial distances in a week in aerobic conditions. And in addition to this, the shorter part distances are sort of striders and the number of anaerobic loads is limited to about one per week.

So, do you believe this method could be used for new high school runners who come out with almost no running experience?

It would be more precise to say that I agree with his first paragraph. Getting volume and “speed” (that’s what I used to call it) up after a layoff seems to require an ever increasing degree of patience. Short, slow plods for weeks on end and the reward for going too fast or too long too soon is another setback. So I enjoy being able to ramp up effort and speed within the format of what would have been a slowish steady state run.
As to Supralap’s inclination to move on to another program after the breakin period, I don’t have an opinion. I tend to mix and match elements from different sources in all phases of a training block.

I do this with many of my freshmen and new runners. I set out cones every 100 meters around an approximately one mile loop on our grounds. Then I have them do workouts like “Run 5 cones at 70% of your best speed and then walk one cone. Do this 8 times.”. After a few weeks of varied reps/walk breaks, most are ready to start tackling sustained runs. I find that it keeps kids motivated and I see far fewer complaints about shin splints and muscle soreness.

One aspect that I think ( I can’t remember every post in this long thread) hasn’t been mentioned, is the personality of the runner involved.

When I was competitive I always enjoyed intervals more than long runs, especially intervals where I felt like I was cruising, rather than straining.

I enjoyed the feeling of running “fast”, even if, in reality it wasn’t as fast as I was imagining. I mistakenly ( and it was over thirty years ago…when I didn’t know any better) tried to get this feeling on most of my steady runs. It was, as you can imagine, a rare occasion, when I felt like I was cruising and moving quickly. Most of the time I was tired and burnt out. Needless to say, I fell in and out of love with running because of that.

That feeling of running fast was more of a pull for me than different locations explored via running. Therefore I would have been able to cope with utilising a track extensively, as I can using a treadmill now. Therefore I wish I could have come across a program like this a lot earlier. It probably would have suited me down to the ground. An individual with preferences and a personality diametrically different than mine, maybe not so much.

After all, a lot of what makes a program / routine successful is the belief of the individual doing it, in its ability to work.

Yes, mentality definitely plays into this.

The regime itself is very repetitive. Essentially the same workouts week in and week out (save for the one harder workout or race every week).

However, within each workout there's always variation with a good dose of faster running.

So if you're not a fan of pure easy runs and you are a person who likes routine/predictability like me, you've hit the sweet spot I think.

From some of the posts I sense a misconception that training like this would require access to a track. I run zero of my weekly workouts on the track.

It's not about hitting exact paces on a measured course. It's about hitting an effort, or a feeling, and getting a good amount of faster running every day (and every week/month/year) without wearing you down. The pace will vary from day to day, depending on lots of factors. And that's fine.

Run the workouts on a track if you like. Otherwise, program your watch and go by the beeps. Hit the road, head the forrest or whatever you like best. Internalize the feeling of running fast while staying relaxed (in full control). Accept that some days you will be positively surprised by the splits, other days you will suck.

I used this for my HS kids as a change in routine over the winter between cross and track season. They did get tired of k repeats, but we had the best track season in school history.

I just started using EIM. It is hard to disagree with Science. The book emphasized by running in HR zone 3 (Tempo) you remove the lactate from your system much faster than at fast paces. This improves your body in removing lactate, hence higher HR/ Faster Pace at your lactate threshold. This cannot be bad to do. The book gives a range of the number of intervals. The book does mention the need to do VO2max intervals but keep them at a reasonable quantity. Maybe your intervals are not run at the correct intensities? For short intervals you use paces but for longer intervals the book uses heart rates. Maybe you have to dig deeper to determine the root cause of your poor race results.

They got bored? Then maybe just run by time in the forest? Can't be more boring than a steady run...

I'm 65 and I've been running for 52 years. As I age I find that 200's at 5k race pace feel real good.

My legs are turning over and it feels good to run "fast" but they don't wear me out.

It takes so much longer for me to recover from harder workouts as I age.

I am 65+ too and think that diversity "is king". There is no silver bullet of a single kind. Easy intervals are very good, indeed, especially for aged people. But when I feel I can (and want) do hard intervals (say, 5x1k at 5k pace with 2 min jog in between), why not? Of course, not every week. During the running/racing season (from early Apr thru late Oct) I use to do 2 workouts a week interchanging between intervals (from nx1k to mx2k and mix, both hard and easy), tempos (continuous and "broken"), hills (short nx50 sec and long mx2 min). 80-90% on trails in a nice forest. This helps avoid bore.

Do not run in winter at all. XC skiing, elliptical and arc trainers at the gym. Zero LT (and above) HR work, but still try to have 15% of volume at sub- or sub-sub-LT (by HR, not by perceived effort that always seems higher).

In my opinion it works. SBs for the previous year (2023) were 18:28, 38:03 and 1:27:20 (5, 10 and HM). All on roads. 4 days ago ran 39:15/10K just after 3 weeks of returning back to running after a long winter.

Good luck to all!

Bump because colder and wiser had a great leading post on trying this (and subsequently tearing it down), and in part because it'd be interesting to see what people think of EIM vs the Norwegian Method, given the differences/similarities.