Executive summary: This was not a good training plan for me. I don’t know who it would be good for. People who don’t like to run very much may be interested in how little running you can do.
The scenario: I’m M51 with high school distance running experience and a return to running as an adult at 44. After a 10K PR (35:50) and running the Boston Marathon last fall, I’m concentrating on shorter races this year (1 mile-10K) and wanted to try a different training method. I’ve had my best success with Canova-inspired plans, but I’ve also tried orthodox Daniels for 5K and I’ve planned buildups based on most of the standard training plans. I was ready to try something new, so I decided to take a look at Klaas Lok’s “Easy Interval Method” (EIM).
The good: Winter weather here is horrible so I have to do most of my training on an indoor track or treadmill for 3-4 months. So a low-mileage, interval-focused plan was a good fit. Doing straight mileage on an indoor track is awful, and intervals at least help break up the monotony. After a couple years of marathon buildups, I needed to work on faster gears again. The EIM’s basic approach is built on 10K training, probably my best distance, and it recommends frequent racing, which I was planning to do this year. The book by Klaas Lok (2019) is inexpensive, and the translator did an excellent job. Some of the recommended workouts are well designed and could be used in other programs. Doing a modest-effort workout every day is a way to modulate fatigue and it did lead to perceivable training effects.
The bad: There’s a lot to say here. I’ll go into detail below, but the effect was that after a month, I hated not just the EIM, but running itself and wanted to quit. I was getting better at doing EIM workouts, but stagnating or declining otherwise. After two months, I dramatically underperformed in a fitness test, so I pulled the plug.
How it went: I used the table on p. 65 in the book to determine workout paces. I’ve recently run a sub-36-minute 10K, which pointed to running 6x1000m in 3:51-4:06 (6:12-6:36/mile) with 800 rest; 10x400m at 83-89 with 400 rest; and 15x200 at 36-40 with 200 rest, or roughly speaking, MP, 5K-10K pace, and mile pace. But I was also coming out of marathon recovery so I gave myself a chance to adapt to the workouts with slower paces and more of the easier workouts per week (typically, 6 miles with a 200m surge once per mile). I progressed to where I was doing one session of 1000s, one of 400s, and one of 200s, progressively working up into the slower part of the specified pace range, with three days of 6 miles with 200m surges and one day off. Every other week, I did 3-4 miles at MP with 200m surges to 10K pace after each mile instead of the 15x200 session.
I hated it. I hated being scheduled to do intervals every day and never having a chance to just go run. I wanted to quit running altogether. I had a 5K coming up, so I tapered (same EIM workouts but lower volume)—and still felt like garbage. The weather looked bad, so I bailed out of the race the day before, the first time I’ve ever done that. I was glad I wasn’t racing, and mad at myself for being glad.
So I tried EIM again. I slowed all the paces down so that I could complete the workout each day and be recovered for the next day’s workout. That meant I only need the easiest day (6 miles with surges) once a week, as specified in the training plan, but it also dropped my MP workouts to 7:00/mile, the 400s were around 1:40, and the 200s were around 45.
I tapered again for a treadmill-based fitness test and did horribly. My performance was roughly on par with guys who run 41-48 minutes 10Ks. I may have gotten somewhat better at EIM workouts, but otherwise my fitness had decreased. Even regular easy runs had gotten to be more difficult. After running sub-2:55 at Boston last fall, I didn’t see any point to running 6x1K at MP+20-30 seconds/mile multiple times a week. I had planned to try the EIM at least until I could get a race in when the weather improves, but you couldn’t pay me to keep going with it.
What’s wrong with the EIM: I’m sure some runners have success with the EIM, but I don’t share their physiology or psychology.
There is some discussion of heart rate and lactate threshold in the book, but it’s pretty superficial. The EIM is not a training method based on physiology. Or rather, it’s not based on cardiovascular physiology. Like other training systems that are built around consistent implementation of one or a few basic principles—think of Daniel’s training zones, or Canova’s percentages of race pace—the EIM is a consistent implementation of the idea of running with a “reactive” or “supple” stride. The basic concept is that steady-pace running, especially at slow speeds, promotes development of an inefficient shuffling running form, and so the EIM has no easy runs without at least periodic surges. The idea is perhaps plausible at first glance. In practice, it doesn't work. Marathoners shuffle because that’s the most energy-efficient way for them to cover 26.2 miles.
The EIM model of stimulus and recovery is too limited. Your options on any given day are either a moderate workout or rest/cross-training. This makes it impossible to achieve high levels of stimulus modulation or to get in a sustained recovery period without taking multiple days off. The approach to periodization and progression is also rudimentary at best. The EIM is designed to be followed year round, with at most the concept of a short “build-up period” (p. 94) and “race period” (p. 84) in some plans.
The EIM doesn’t have a good grasp on what athletes it’s a good fit for. Consequently, it tries to apply to everyone: novice to elite, youth to masters, runners training from 1 to 14 times per week, at all events from 800m to marathon. The workouts are largely the same for all event groups (because it’s all just aerobic development, supposedly; p. 67). The EIM discourages weightlifting, but having missed the last two revolutions in running footwear, it recommends training in minimalist shoes.
The EIM frequently invokes the straw man of “traditional methods (which are based on high mileage, steady-state training)” (p. 11) as if most other plans aren’t already doing interval sessions. They just aren’t doing intervals every freaking day. And I’ll say this for training approaches that emphasize sustained running, such as Canova’s: they work. They work for elites, and they’ve worked for me. Because the thing about races is they require you to run fast at a steady pace for a long time.
The EIM rejoinder is that I just wasn’t in shape for the workouts I was doing, but, hello, I ran a sub-36 10K not long ago, so maybe the problem isn’t me. A true EIM enthusiast would tell me that I just didn’t stick with it long enough. As the book says, it might take a year to fully see the benefits (p. 66). But the EIM was a new training stimulus for me, and if I don’t respond in some positive way after a couple months, that tells me all I need to know. I’m not going to waste a critical year in the younger cohort of my age group trying to force my training to fit this training plan.
I’m sorry, EIM. It’s over.