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

This.

And Lok himself ran a race every weekend or every other weekend. Like a 3 mile XC or something similar.

Klaas himself his marathon pr is way too slow for his 10k pr. This should tell you everything you need to know about the method.

Those who claim success with it eventually will stop improving. There is no alternative to endurance runs.

Very insightful! Klaas ran one marathon (at least as listed on his IAAF/WA profile). The fact that it was slower than what could be predicted from his 10k PR means his method doesn't work at all.
That's because no one improves, ever, in their second or third marathon.

PS: Maybe that is why on pages 130/131 Klaas addresses the subject. He even titled it "Long endurance run (with surges) is essential".

If you want to discredit someone's work, at least try to use facts.

Klaas Lok's marathon time is weak in comparison to his ultimate 10k PR but he wasn't same 10k runner when he attempted his marathon. He only really tried to do a marathon at the very end of his career after being pretty much retired due to a foot injury. So when he ran 2:17 he was no where near a 28:30 10k guy, he says more like 30:00 or slower so it's not as simple to say he had no endurance. It's impossible to know what he'd have ran in his prime but he did do some 20km road races in 59:xx so it's slightly disingenuous to say he had no endurance.

Okay show me one elite who follows this approach.

Or show me one study that proves this method.

Or maybe you can show facts about Klaas claims.

No you can't show any of these because there's nothing to show.

Again, this above is not EIM. And it's also not even believable anymore.

Think about it guys, OP slowed down the 1000m to MP + 30 because he couldn't recover 1000m intervals at 10 beats lower than marathon avg hr?!!

So basically he wasn't recovering 1000m repeats at the top of zone2? Wat. How many 1000m repeats at MP could I do nonstop if I had a walk/jog interval of 800m after each? I don't know, I would think possibly over 42 of them. So 6 of them would be a complete joke.

But on a serious note, we clearly see the issue. This is not EIM. This guy added 3 moderate endurance runs with surges per week (only found in 6 day schedules) and lowered the meat and potatoes workouts to once per week at way slower than reccomended. No wonder no gains.

Also If you struggle with recovery from 6x1000m at MP, you might want to get checked out for serious health issues. Remember this is a pace we can hold for 2 to 3 hours. So to not be able to do 6x4min is disturbing, to say the least. Or troll alert and I fell for it.

Man, in 1950s - 1960s propably all training was Just repeats effort everyday and they run quite fast. Look on 'How they train'. If stress is long enough, then whatever is steady run on intervals.

Bumping this thread to follow up on my own post from the first page which noted I was racing a road 5k today after about 3 months of training this way. I ran 15 minutes flat, a 30+ second improvement from 4 months ago. So, I’d say as long as I can resolve the sleeping issues (which may be totally unrelated to training, anyway), I have every intention of continuing to train this way as it clearly works for me.

I've enjoyed my time doing EIM. It's become my default now. Sure, if a friend messages me and asks if I want to go for an easy run, I do that, but if I'm going solo and only have an hour, I'll always choose 10x400 or 6x1km over a steady run.

I actually see quite a lot of overlap with the Norwegian/Bakken style of training. They're doing 5 interval sessions per week + a moderate long run, where at least 4 of the interval sessions have strict limits put on the intensity. In EIM you train 6 days per week, do 4-5 interval sessions with strict limits put on the intensity, a race, and/or a moderate long run. The Norwegians pack those interval sessions into three days, EIM spreads them out across the week.

The big take home for me from both methods is that time spent at or around threshold is super valuable as a way to push up race pace from below, and that those should be efforts you can achieve day after day. I think a lot of us who haven't had the benefit of proper in-person coaching (eg High School XC team) too often equate all interval training with puking up on the infield after a session, and that's not the case. Finishing a workout having never gone into the red is fine - it's repeating it day after day for weeks on end that makes the difference.

In terms of results I've run PRs over 1500, mile and 5k off the back of EIM and really enjoyed racing.

I do not know the Easy It method, but the Norwegian Model does not try to use moderate running and is rather polarized between thresholds or easy. Marius Bakken did his easy runs at <135 bpm (ref his max was 190). That is fart from moderate. But the easisest thresholds starts below M-pace for those fast runners, but still above moderate (depending on how you define the moderate pace). Probably Jakob and those break the rules and sometimes goes a little too fast on the easy runs though, but the intention is to keep the easy easy...

Sorry, I think that word sidetracked you - I didn't realize it was a specific intensity used in coaching. I was using moderate in the dictionary definition to mean it's not especially long - ie neither method calls for middle distance runners to do regular 2hr+ runs

"One of the things I really disliked about the EIM is the sense that,... it can never fail. It can only be failed. If the EIM doesn't work for someone, they must have done it wrong."

This is my biggest takeaway from the thread, and I think it has less to do with EIM than it does with discussing any method on the boards. If you look at any thread where someone says they tried a certain method and it didn't work for them or they didn't enjoy it, the zealots of that method will come out and say the OP did it wrong or didn't do it long enough. Just the way it goes I guess...

People here constantly look at a runner's across the board performances and then criticize the training when there are performances that seem slower than they "should" be relative to that athletes other times without considering circumstances. Lots of good track runners wait to run a marathon until they're obviously past their peaks. Some run marathons seriously and then stop racing shorter distances seriously. You can't evaluate just by looking at numbers.

One elite who followed this approach? Well, Lok was elite in his time so there's one.

No because in this case he did do it wrong. His training looks nothing like EIM.

EIM meat and potatoes is 6x1000m at faster than MP, multiple times per week. This guy claims he was doing 1 session of 6x1000m at 10 beats slower than MP and that was too hard, so he was doing 1 session of 6x1000m at MP + 30s!!! And he thought he was compensating by adding 3 moderate endurance runs per week, only found on 6day schedules every other week.

Lol lol lol. Not even close. Actually not even believable because we all know 6x1000m at MP+30 is pretty close to the top of zone2. That's a pace we can hold for at least 5 hours.

So yeah you may have a point on general threads on letsrun. But not here, we got hit by a troll or an ex teammate of Klaas is mad that he wrote a book about Coach Verheul's Method. That's my theory. His comments do not compute with EIM.

This last post was in response to HRE.

Aha, I am very used to easy, moderate and hard as the simplest intensity scale. My bad too :-)

Not recovering off MP + 30 sec. is unbelievable.

I'm 65 and I would running the recovery on 6x1000m at 8 min per mile/5 min per 1k, which is more than likely faster than MP + 30 sec (7:30 per mile age grades to a 2:31 marathon, and I doubt I could have done that).

In fact MP + 30 for me would actually be a recovery run.

I'm running the 1000m (or 4 min segments if I do by time) at around 6:50 per mile/4:15 per 1K, which is probably close to, or a little faster than 10 mile pace.