Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

What people forget is that EIM is a low mileage system, unlike NSM. If you try to run a simular milage in EIM as in the Norwegian method, of course you will get very tired.

I only run 3 times/week, and for me EIM is perfect. I feel fresh every time I lace up my running shoes, and I never race anything longer than 10k, so I don't need higher mileage on my modest level.

I was doing 150 km weeks when I was in my prime, and it feels nice not having to go that route again.

I think you misunderstood the post. He wasn't saying he is doing EIM. He totally changed it and it just ended up being like NSM over 5 days by default.

EIM in itself is obviously very different to NSM. It's also a lot more hit and miss for people. I don't think it was an EIM discussion, he was just merely pointing out that EIM was his starting point to how he got to 5 sessions of sub threshold a week (which didn't seem to be sustainable).

As the subject has come up, EIM did nothing for me at all. It's not really based on much other than what Lok just says. I don't feel it's backed up really by many principles.

I disagree. EIM is based on hard science and NSM is really just a case study of one, there's nothing to back it up. We don't really even know it works for more than a few people.

For sure, 99% of runners here in this thread would benefit more from EIM than this silly NSM.

I have to disagree, EIM is, by default, not a low-mileage training, while it can be. I did a long stretch of EIM (one year) training at about 100-110kmpw, which prooved to be quite beneficial for me (ran 1.16 hm at 35, while my pb is 1.15 from when i was 28). But with EIM you need to be even more careful with intensity control than with NSM. If, with NSM, you have three workouts per week at RPE 5-7, and then four runs at RPE 1-2, I did 5 EIM workouts weekly at RPE 3-5 (which is usually really nothing more demanding than a Daniels-type "easy" run, one harder workout at 6-8 (similar to the X-factor workout, ranging from short hill reps to marathon specific workouts) and one super easy run at RPE 1. This was very repeatable, preserving me very well even during the summer heat, and yielded even higher training load than NSM does. But, again, you should treat the standard EIM workouts more or less as a substitute to easy running.

So, although Lok maybe doesn't even realize this, the basic advantage of EIM is the possibility of getting a very high training load, not the mumbo jumbo about the reactivity or whatever. Which is the same core phylosophy as with NSM, although somewhat differently implemented. Also the model is not as much set in stone as the NSM, everybody does it a bit differently, but if you do several core workouts (15x200,10x400, 6-8x1k, 4-5x2k) per week, you do EIM in my opinion.

It is, however, very restrictive, with so few really easy runs you feel constantly a bit pressured, while NSM removes a lot of this. Also, EIM is probably not applicable for inexperienced runners, since it is very very easy to overcook things. Also zero (or close to zero) elites to it, so its scope is only limited to seasoned veterans who search for a different approach to training.

How is EIM based on Hard Science and NSM not?

I've read EIM, I used it to get into some shape after a layoff and found it great.

I've been at NSM seriously for about 12 months now.

They are both load control programmes (aren't all programs really) and are both underpinned by testimonials rather than hard science. Both work in my opinion but saying Lok Has hard science and Copeland doesn't is nonsense.

I did find the mental load of EIM to be draining as someone else said. There is a lot to be said for truly easy running where your mind can wander and you can smell the daisies.

Other than that I think they are broadly speaking two ways to skin the same cat i.e. Effective for Hobby Joggers and Masters Runners but sub optimal for Elites

Very odd. Eim book is quite vague. It clearly works for some people but it's all a little strange at himed. NSM book really has a lot of the detail, displays and evidence of why. It's also grounded in a mixture of double threshold and of course cycling training. Both of which have tons of evidence to back them up. But to say the NSM isn't backed up, I don't think you've read the book

Have to say the Strava group is hilarious. NSM and imcorporating golf questions. You can never predict what people will post next.

That's nothing. Someone once messaged me on Strava DM and asked me how they could incorporate subthreshold running with their taekwondo training. Needless to say, I didn't have much to offer.

Anyway, the resident golf expert here is lexel, who pitched in for a 120+ yare eagle at St. Andrews last week. This actually happened, to give the thread another bizarre digression.

It seems to me some of these accounts may be a bit exaggerated by someone who wants to defend the method. Most of them have the same writing styles. Obviously I believe it works and it's worked for me but 'youth hopeful' and 'ezekiel' from a few pages back who claim to have broken 15 but we can't find any evidence of them have been setting alarms off. I actually went thoroughly through power of 10 and the Strava NSM group (obviously I know they might not be in it) and couldn't find anyone that matched the descriptions

Jakob and Bakken (back in his day) rarely exceeded 10-11 miles for their long runs, per his book. So that’s what, only about 60-68 max minutes for their long run?

Makes me wonder why I’m doing 90 min long runs as a hobby jogger.

Where the hell did I say that? Retarded straw man argument.

I would be careful on powerof10. Since it switched over to being horrible since the update, half my races have vanished and nothing has been updated on my profile this year.

It's not fair to dox them, but the young kid I am 90% sure posted around January, maybe slightly before on the Strava group asking am I in X shape. He was running 15:30 then I seem to remember at parkrun.

We have been through before people thinking some of the faster guys mentioned here were full of bs, but they always appear in the end.

On a more useful note, as the thread has been quite active lately and I'm guessing people are thinking more about muscle tone, has anyone found a really practical way to use it or measure it day to day? I've re-read Bakken's thoughts on it and I wonder how the information can be used, sourced or even applied. Maybe I'm an idiot but I feel I do need a real idiots guide to it.

90 mins is plenty unless you are running a marathon. There's just no reason to go further in my eyes.

Whatever they did to power of 10 is dumb. Just as dumb as Strava where you can't search all the old posts. There's gold in there.

I just see muscle tone really as hoe cooked the legs are for basic things like walking the stairs the next day. It doesn't need to be more complex I don't think.

I'm definitely interested in the muscle tone stuff now we have had a chance to digest it all. Especially if people are managing to apply to day to day?

I've just been using it really it in terms of am I cooked from a session. I guess more sirpoc's description of RPE kind of scale of the legs going into the easy day. E.g they are 4/10 hurting. I don't really know if people are actually poking their muscles or what. But, just doing that and keeping the legs on that kind of scale 2-3/10 max the day after a session, seems to mean I have things under control.

It's possible sirpoc and Bakken add basically saying the same thing? But just looking at it from a totally different point.

This may have already been answered. But has anyone tried an ultra or had good success with an ultra training like this? This may seem dumb but I almost feel like it's a good plan. You really just need to be able to be on your feet for a long time and have a good aerobic engine. Even though it's longer than a marathon, I feel like this might be a good plan for an ultra coming up? Just vanilla and a 3 hour run.