Easy Interval Method

CAA wrote:

Klaas, I just bought the book and like it a lot. I'd like to ask some questions but I'm not on FB and unlikely ever to be. Could I suggest that you continue posting on here, and if a discussion becomes relevant then copy it to the FB group? ("The following question was asked by XYZ on Letsrun... This was my answer...").

It adds a bit of work for you (or Russ?) but FB has some serious problems and many people can't or won't join it.

When I've finished the book I'll ask my questions on here anyway and hope they get a response.

Hi CAA, I will try to come here now and then!

adad wrote:

One note about this training method, despite feeling real fresh everyday and ever run being repeatable, I do have the need to stretch a lot more often during the day. That may be some of the benefit of the method, having more tension in the legs on a regular basis. For me, that is great up to an extent, but less great when having to commute in a car for hours, sitting at a desk for a while. Stretching between these bouts of sitting etc I find a lot more crucial while running using easy interval method than other methods (though with other methods, I just feel trashed every now and again)/

Without guaranteeing it: I expect this to get a bit better in near future.

I don't know what the 'easy interval method' is exactly, other than what it sounds like, but I know from looking at the Strava of Amel Tuka in the lead up to these Games, he has been doing plenty of 4 x 400 at 6 minute mile pace on easy days. He basically does intervals on his easy days.

Seems to work for him.

Here comes my first critique or better improvement suggestion to the 1000m easy interval.

In general the 1000m easy interval should be done sub-threshold and the recovery should be 800m to 1000m. So a typical interval duration is 4 to 5 minutes and the recovery interval , at easy pace, is about the same time. However, my critique is that the recovery interval duration is too short. If i do it every day i have the feeling that the recovery interval time (or equivalent distance) should be longer.

That would be also in line with the Lydiard System were you should compensate for any intense training unit with way more easy pace running ....

lexel wrote:

Here comes my first critique or better improvement suggestion to the 1000m easy interval.

In general the 1000m easy interval should be done sub-threshold and the recovery should be 800m to 1000m. So a typical interval duration is 4 to 5 minutes and the recovery interval , at easy pace, is about the same time. However, my critique is that the recovery interval duration is too short. If i do it every day i have the feeling that the recovery interval time (or equivalent distance) should be longer.

That would be also in line with the Lydiard System were you should compensate for any intense training unit with way more easy pace running ....

So are you just suggesting faster interval pace, and increased recovery?

Also, the easy interval method doesn't have 6x1000m EVERY day. Sometimes its 400s, sometimes 200s.

No. I am suggesting the same subthreshold pace , but a longer recovery phase in between these faster intervals.

The EIM is based on the assumption that you could do it every day.

However i believe a pyramidial approach is better. Therefore the recovery interval time, between the more intense interval, should be longer.

I am doing them in the beginning about marathon pace and following my feelings. Many times they are progressing into at about HM pace,not forcing! BUT easy jog 1km is without any obligation,so if it is hot temperatures or feeling need of they are 6:00/km pace ,maybe strating even slower. In that way the "fast" 1K's are always manageble,not needig longer recovery.

lexel wrote:

No. I am suggesting the same subthreshold pace , but a longer recovery phase in between these faster intervals.

The EIM is based on the assumption that you could do it every day.

However i believe a pyramidial approach is better. Therefore the recovery interval time, between the more intense interval, should be longer.

Extend the walking part a bit? Make sure the easy part is really easy?

If you can’t recover within the prescribed window and it doesn’t “feel like something you could do everyday,” then it sounds like you are running the work-intervals too hard… slow it down, the EIM isn’t made for workout warriors…

I see it in the long run. Not one week, several weeks of training.

Lets take an example 1):

You do 5 minutes On @marathon pace followed by 5 minutes Off @easy pace. 6 times. These are 30 minutes at marathon pace and 30 minutes at easy pace. If you add 10 minutes warm up at easy pace you have:

30minutes @moderate pace and 40 minutes @easy pace. Is that balanced in the long run ? Not for me.

Example 2)

We increase the recovery (off) interval duration to lets say 8 minutes. We have now 30 minutes at marathon pace and 6*8=48 minutes easy pace plus warm up easy.

This is in total 30 minutes @moderate pace and 58 minutes @easy pace. So double the time at easy pace.

This is for me more balanced and more pyramidal (proportion 1:2).

Ok, you say now the run in example 2 is in total longer, and my answer would be to reduce the number of On intervals, from 6 down to whatever you like.

Now you're talking!

Intentional or not.

My entire race-training strategy!

Only rule: no walking or sitting.

A basic truth is that anyone offering the "easy ... Method" in any area of activity is seeling snake oil.

bulwinkle wrote:

A basic truth is that anyone offering the "easy ... Method" in any area of activity is seeling snake oil.

You´re not very bright, are you? Easy is referring to intensity, not that the method is easy.

jamese1045@hotmail.com

wrote:

Now you're talking!

Intentional or not.

My entire race-training strategy!

Only rule: no walking or sitting.

What you mean with entire race-training strategy? Can you explain that?

Update from my side:

Recently i did a hill race (about 600hm up and down and 14km in total). It was my first hill race and i got under the top 20 (about 100 participants).

I am very happy with that result. I still have 83kg and are 184 cm tall so there is room for more.

The EIM helps for sure. I have the feeling especially the intermediate type 2a fibers get trained very well. This helps also in the mountains.

Not EIM, and before the race, i had one (holiday) week were 1 trained 5 x 2h easy running also in hilly terain, 1 x rec. cycling flat, and another training week with 3 days doubling up (easy) , 2 x rec. cycling (easy) and one medium run. About 11h for both weeks. That was a huge input for my body.

If i run now at easy paces my heart rate is now significant lower, it seems to be i had a deficite with the use of the slow twitch fibers (type 1). They were just underdeveloped. I would not have found that with EIM training only.

Some learnings for me:

1) Having a good aerobic development (slow twitch fibers) before applying the EIM is a good idea (keyword training the Lydiard way)

2) Also I believe a pyramidal training distribution is better than a polarized 80:20 training distribution. You need also the moderate zone, because of the muscle fiber distribution. Keyword EIM method.

And what i like with the EIM is that it gos the long way. You do not overtrain so easy, and improve long term and consistenly. But i would also do a LT-run from time to time or apply a longer interval times, mix it up a little more.

lexel wrote:

2) Also I believe a pyramidal training distribution is better than a polarized 80:20 training distribution. You need also the moderate zone, because of the muscle fiber distribution. Keyword EIM method.

Agreed.

Elites have very high aerobic thresholds, that are close to their anaerobic thresholds. So their "moderate" zone is quite small, but they do train in this.

The rest of us, can have a larger moderate zone, and do need to train here. I would still call it polarised, but everyone's "80/20" percentages can be different, and they also change depending on the phase of training.

Disciple wrote:

lexel wrote:

2) Also I believe a pyramidal training distribution is better than a polarized 80:20 training distribution. You need also the moderate zone, because of the muscle fiber distribution. Keyword EIM method.

Agreed.

Elites have very high aerobic thresholds, that are close to their anaerobic thresholds. So their "moderate" zone is quite small, but they do train in this.

The rest of us, can have a larger moderate zone, and do need to train here. I would still call it polarised, but everyone's "80/20" percentages can be different, and they also change depending on the phase of training.

Not to speak for Klas, but it seems to me that there is a very good opportunity to adjust intensity within the principals of the system. For example you could do the 1000m anywhere from marathon to 10k pace and it still be a worthwhile workout, but with very different intensity.

I'm 64 and have always tended (through nearly 50 years of training) to be a workout warrior, and I'm finding that the Easy Interval Method is working well for me, curbing my worst instincts to blast sessions. I also like that you don't have so many slow recovery runs.

Just thought I'd add one more data point to the discussion as I bought the book and have been doing the training for about a month now. I have another thread somewhere on here about me trying to go under 20 minutes for a 5K at 50 years old. Well, I turned 50 a couple months ago and haven't met my goal, so thought I'd give this method a shot. It's biggest draw for me was the promise of being able to stay healthy. As I've gotten older, I've struggled with that, and this year has been particularly frustrating, with a lot of lower body injuries (was out for 2 months over the summer with a pulled hamstring).

So my goals, in order:

- stay healthy

- enjoy running

- be consistent

- sub-20 5k

I started with the 6 day plan, but quickly found it too much volume (~45mpw) and switched to the 5 day plan. 4 weeks ago I ran 21:49 for 5k, Saturday I ran 21:29. I'm back on the 6 day plan now as I've gained some fitness. I live at altitude and run all my workouts on a crushed granite trail.

So far, things I like:

- Every day feels like a "quality" day, for some level and definition of quality. Gone are the days of slogging out a 5 miler after killing yourself on the track the day before.

- My body seems to be responding well. Except for that first week when I tried to jump into the 6 day plan, my body never feels run down, and my legs, while not exactly "fresh", never feel trashed.

- A mixture of paces. Kind of contradictory to my first point below, but if you choose the "two-week schedule" over the "build-up schedule", you do 200s, 400s, 1000s, 2000s, "endurance runs", and 100m strides.

- Don't have to think too much. All the paces and workouts are laid out in the book, and there's a wide enough range e.g. 20s for 1000s, that if you're feeling good or bad, it's not too hard to hit the paces or run a little quicker if you're feeling it.

- I look forward to the workouts. Nothing is too intimidating, or painful, or boring. I'm not wondering how I'm going to complete the workout or hit the paces. I know I can do the workout, and probably feel good about it after.

Things I don't like:

- Can be monotonous. If you pick the "build-up schedule", the first week of the 6 day plan has 5 days of 6x1000. Ugh.

- I miss running hard. You never really push yourself very hard. It's all very regulated. I believe racing well is 90% mental, and you need to train that mental aspect. So I'm trying to race frequently to address that.

- Similar to the first two points, I have to fight the sense that I'm missing something. I used to feel that my bread and butter workouts were tempos and progression runs, and I miss them. There's also a part of me that feels like I should be busting my lungs on the track to really prepare for races, but the book does include anaerobic periods before target races, so those should come.

- Again to the mental point, you really get used to the rest periods, but obviously you don't get those in a race. He suggests you walk/jog before/after intervals, so I'm worried that I'm training my mind and body to expect those rests after X minutes. So far, in my two 5ks, it hasn't been a problem, but I worry about it.

- It's lonely. You really can't "just go out and run" with someone if you follow the plan to the letter. There are no training groups using this method. And since every day is a prescribed interval workout, it's almost impossible to run socially with others. Doing intervals on my Thursday evening beer run with the group would be odd, and I'd kind of look like a jerk if I did surges on a Saturday group long run. So I just run alone.

Overall, I'm definitely making progress, though that could just be easy gains from running more, and I'm staying healthy and relatively fresh, but again, it's only been a little over a month. I plan to keep following the method for as long as I'm meeting my first three goals above. I may swap out one interval day for a more social group run, though.

Full disclaimer: I haven't bought or read the book.

With that said, I'm inclined to argue that races become mentally easier since your race pace would be similar to your interval pace. So there would be a lot of familiarity with it.

There's also another poster on here who dropped his 8K time from 34:36 on 9/11/21 to 31:55 on 10/22/21 using easy intervals. But he's doing a bit more volume than the 6x1000, 10x400, and 15x200 sessions that are commonly used.