Klaas Lok the autor of the book 'Easy interval method' writes on page 34:
'Research has shown that intensity just under the lactate threshold produces the highest value of lactate clearance, up to 30% more than at or above the threshold'
However, unfortunately he does not provides any literature link.
I guess this statement is not true.
There's so misleading information in the book.
There's a section where researchers compared between interval work with steady runs.
Klaas tweaked the results to show his method works.
Dear Lexel, you can read about the 30% here:https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20800820/lactate-in-lactate-out/
And to Yes35: no misleading information or tweaking. You can read this comparison here (https://www.sportsperformancebulletin.com/endurance-training/base-endurance-training/10k-training/
), which shows relative easy interval training is more effective than tempo runs:
Which doesn’t mean we should never do any tempo runs or never any long runs.
However, a lot of interval training is essential. World class runners perform interval sessions almost daily, but they mostly also have an aerobic session (a longer run) the same day. The high number of interval sessions compensate the slow runs. For the everyday runner scheduling 2 sessions a day is not common, but he/she should still do a lot of interval sessions. The solution to this is a schedule in which one has sessions that are 2 in 1: aerobic and meanwhile interval: eg 6x1000m (up to 8-10 for very well-trained runners, just 4 for novice runners or older masters).
Then some more about the Easy Interval Method (EIM) that I describe in my book:
I advocate that extensive, longer interval training could be a more efficient, quicker and lighter way to build aerobic endurance for middle and long distance running, compared to steady state training.
Combine this with some shorter easy interval training and – at a certain moment in the training cycle – add some longer runs and anaerobic training + speed (depending on race distance), and you have the Easy Interval Method.
I have experienced with both approaches and found that easy interval training worked best for me. Results of many other runners also show this, and research found elements of the EIM to be very effective (read the previously mentioned links; more research is available in my book and website easyintervalmethod.com).
It is not just a matter of reactivity and running economy which make extensive longer (and shorter) interval training the better choice. You also have to consider the muscle fibre types. Some world-class long-distance runners have 90% slow (type 1) and 10% fast twitch (type 2) fibres. However, most of us have a more or less 50-50 distribution. (Although it differs per muscle group:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/123895/
Because of this we need to ask the question: are we efficiently training these fast twitch fibres type 2 (which are partly aerobic) when doing a lot of slow steady state training?
Arthur Lydiard was very successful with his long runs in his base training, but the misunderstanding in this concept is that these long runs were not just slow, easy runs, but mostly fast, and performed in a hilly environment, which made them actually more akin aerobic interval training. This resembles the aerobic interval training I advocate in the Easy Interval Method. So, the misleading is not in my book, but in the way many runners interpret the Lydiard base training !
Physiologist Hans Keizer, former national coach and team physician of the Dutch Athletic Union, once told me how also he misinterpreted the Lydiard-approach:
In the winter of 1968-1969 Arthur Lydiard gave a lecture in the Netherlands in which he talked about his high mileage, low intensity endurance training for middle distance runners. Several top Dutch runners followed suit, including Keizer’s wife, Ilja Keizer-Laman (6th in the Olympic 1500m in 1972 – pb 4:05). All runners performed worse in 1969 with the only minor success coming at the end of that track season where some runners managed to equal their performances of the year before. Dr Hans Keizer said: “Only later we learned that Lydiard’s endurance runs were actually high-end aerobic interval runs of around 800m up-hill with a recovery run down. Due to the flat environment in the Netherlands, for us it became a steady slow run with no variation in intensity. When you do slow, steady state training, you will ‘untrain’ your fast aerobic type 2 muscle fibres”.
So, you need to run fast, meanwhile staying aerobic and perform this several times a week. Performing fast endurance runs (eg around 30-40 minutes) several times a week, however, will break you down (most of us). Performing high-end aerobic interval training with good recovery in between is the solution I promote: you will train your aerobic fast muscle fibres type 2 more efficiently compared to slow steady long runs, without exhausting yourself, compared to performing fast endurance runs.
My clubmate Piet de Peuter used this principles in Kenya with 2016 Olympic 1500m champion Kipyegon and 2017 world champion marathon Kirui (he lives in their village).
Many runners say they experience more joy in running, feeling fitter, getting back lost motivation, faster recovery after a race, quicker return to fitness after a period of not training, more fun in training (as you can read in some posts here) and more. Read experiences of runners onwww.easyintervalmethod.com