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

n9 wrote:

I'm in my first week of EIM and I'm having similar feelings so far.

I'm M39, my last training cycle was like this:

- base build with Norwegian doubles 2x week (staple workouts were 8-10x1000 in 3:30-3:40 with 200 m jog and 3-5х6-10 minutes at 6:20-6:30 per mile with 1 min jog), easy long run, alternating hill sprints and track 200s every other week, 80-105 mpw

- sharpen with Canova-like workouts - long runs with gradually increasing segments at goal MP(6:00-6:15), second hard day of the week could be progressions, Norwegian doubles, hill running, rest of the mileage easy, up to 105 mpw but generally around 85-90.

This culminated in 2:42 marathon which is 5 min slower than my all-time best but also 5 min faster than anything after COVID so I considered it a success. What I did not like was

1) I was often too intimidated by hard workouts, like when you have to run 4x5K at goal MP in a long run. Sometimes I would just bail and run 20 miles alternating one mile at MP and one mile at MP+30-40 s which would somehow seem less scary. Hitting 1000 paces in Norwegian double would also be hard on a hot day or after not getting proper sleep, or sometimes you would hit them all right but then feel too tired to work.

2) I felt some of the easy mileage I did was unproductive and maybe even counterproductive, but I did it because I like running. Those 10 mile jogs in the forest may not be as fun in the dark and cold of winter.

I looked at EIM and it seemed to hit some of the boxes I wanted:

- something new (if a training schedule worked once, it's time to change it)

- The general idea to accumulate a lot of relatively easy threshold running (why, am 6x1000 pm 10x400 is basically a bit watered down Norwegian double)

- No need to run a lot of miles in the dark

- Workouts are not intimidating at all. If I can't run 6x1000 at MP with 800 jog rest (and walking breaks!) I should probably see a doctor.

So I started with the highest frequency HM plan just in time for Berlin HM this spring.

My first surprise was that contrary to what is written in the book, I found 6x1000 extremely boring (a steady run through a forest or by the lake is not). It takes a bit over an hour and the rest jogs are long enough to get into the mode 'hey maybe I should cut this short'. Maybe if I somehow learn to run this kind of workout on forest trails it will be more fun. A suitable piece of paved road is 3.5 miles away, a bit too far to warmup-cooldown, on track, listening to an audiobook barely helps.

The second surprise was that 5 days of doing this = 5 days of being sore. I ran 1000s in 3:50, right at my MP. This (as well as equivalency tables) puts me on 34-36 lines in the table. I run 200s in 37-39, 400s in 1:24-1:26, so a bit on the slower side of the ranges. I don't think I was as sore doing faster 1000s with less rest but not doing them every day.

I'm going to stick with it though for this cycle unless it goes terribly wrong in the coming weeks

colder and wiser wrote:

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.

colder and wiser wrote:

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.

Bubba123 wrote:

I tried EIM for about 3 months sticking to it extremely close. I also tried this method with my athletes I coached in high school for cross country.

The good: -Easy to plug and play workouts.

- Everyone is training together on the track and that is huge to see all your friend doing intervals.

- The paces were pretty easy to dial in sort of like the Daniel's method I guess

-I had initial success with myself and the athletes.

The Bad: -- I did all of the reps on the track while training for cross country. The kids were not used to the terrain. A major blunder on my part, but I was following what it said in the book closely.

- The rest was WAY TO GOD DAMN LONG which killed the stimulus of the intervals I feel like. 1k reps @10k pace should only be 1-2 mins max.... His workouts did not provide enough of a stimulus due to the long rest.

- The kids got bored of the track despite music and little fun games for warm up.

-Performance dropped in races due to lack of steady state running and long runs. The kids were begging for them.

Conclusion: Fun stimulus for about 5-6 weeks then its a chore. I went back to my old style of training and their performances shot back up. One girl I coached seemed to do really well on it, as she started doing this before everyone else on the team. She was the Gennie pig and it seemed like it was working, but it did not for everyone. I FOLLOW THIS THING TO A "T" I'm talking straight out of the book and I poured over it.

Finance Bro wrote:

colder and wiser wrote:

Not quite. Here's one schedule that didn't work because it didn't allow for sufficient recovery:

Here's another schedule, essentially copied from p. 90 but with paces adjusted as needed. It didn't work because the recovery was sustainable, but the workouts were pointless:

My takeaway from this isn't that the EIM workouts are bad, or even that the schedule is bad (although it was for me). The basic point is that EIM's basic approach to stimulus and recovery is flawed. The only options are either a moderate stimulus, or taking the day off. It could just be my age, but I have to fine-tune my recovery on a much finer scale than this. Repeatedly switching from low gear to high gear and back in a workout is a significant stress for me. Trying to keep up a moderate stimulus every day just led to fatigue piling up unproductively. I could have cut back to running 3-4 times a week, but that also has major fitness costs for me.

As you noted, age is likely a factor here, but I would argue that the stimulus of the EIM is anything but moderate especially if you are doing a weekly race OR "race-like" effort. If I did nothing but easy intervals and moderate endurance runs with surges, I don't think I would have gotten nearly as far as I have doing either a weekly race or traditional track intervals. The weekly race or hard session is the most important day of the week, and the days between are just meant as recovery (while still running "fast", but not "hard"). I think the second schedule that you posted could work a little better for you if instead of doing that moderate endurance run you did something like 5x1k @ 5k pace or 5x1 mile @ 10k - HM pace.

Cavorty wrote:

Finance Bro wrote:

As you noted, age is likely a factor here, but I would argue that the stimulus of the EIM is anything but moderate especially if you are doing a weekly race OR "race-like" effort. If I did nothing but easy intervals and moderate endurance runs with surges, I don't think I would have gotten nearly as far as I have doing either a weekly race or traditional track intervals. The weekly race or hard session is the most important day of the week, and the days between are just meant as recovery (while still running "fast", but not "hard"). I think the second schedule that you posted could work a little better for you if instead of doing that moderate endurance run you did something like 5x1k @ 5k pace or 5x1 mile @ 10k - HM pace.

Oddly enough, I did something quite like that schedule last year getting ready for the World Senior Games (I'm 65).

I alternated EIM sessions with 3 or 4 mile recovery runs at about marathon pace to marathon pace +30 sec (unless particularly tired).

I figure 3 miles is only like a warm-up/warm-down so is unlikely to harm 'reactivity.'

I can't imagine running an EIM session of 6x1000m at marathon + 30 and getting fatigue, other than due to time on feet. These days I'd probably be around 8 min per mile or so for a marathon, and my warm up mile is generally 7:30/7:40.

Maybe it's a question of OP being an extreme slow twitch type and a marathon that is fast relative to shorter distance paces. I was reverse in that was probably best at 3000m, could run an OK 10k, but my marathon pace was a good minute a mile or more slower than 10k pace.

colder and wiser wrote:

Cavorty wrote:

Oddly enough, I did something quite like that schedule last year getting ready for the World Senior Games (I'm 65).

I alternated EIM sessions with 3 or 4 mile recovery runs at about marathon pace to marathon pace +30 sec (unless particularly tired).

I figure 3 miles is only like a warm-up/warm-down so is unlikely to harm 'reactivity.'

I can't imagine running an EIM session of 6x1000m at marathon + 30 and getting fatigue, other than due to time on feet. These days I'd probably be around 8 min per mile or so for a marathon, and my warm up mile is generally 7:30/7:40.

Maybe it's a question of OP being an extreme slow twitch type and a marathon that is fast relative to shorter distance paces. I was reverse in that was probably best at 3000m, could run an OK 10k, but my marathon pace was a good minute a mile or more slower than 10k pace.

I'm slow twitch, but not extremely so. 10K-HM are my best distances, not the marathon.

2022 was pretty much a lost year for me. After dropping the EIM, it took me most of the year to get back to normal-ish training. Mostly due to age and fatigue issues rather than the EIM, but I'll save that for later. I want to see how my spring race goes first.

The problem with the EIM isn't the workouts, it's the recovery. My body now demands more than 24 hours to recover from anything at a steady pace or faster. Sometimes it takes 3 days or longer before I can do anything faster than easy pace. If I try to ignore that, overtraining sets in and shuts me down. That's the physiology I have, and physiology always wins. So I can do lots of easy running every day, or I can do EIM workouts and run maybe twice a week.

I think I'll stick to lots of easy running because 1) it's fun, 2) it's healthy, and 3) I can actually sustain that training approach rather than burning out. It's not the physiology I would have chosen, and it's not what I was expecting just over a year ago, but I've got to work with what I have.