'Easy Interval Method'

18 watchers

1
2
3
4
Next
Last

J2R Mar 2021 6:54am, 10 Mar 2021 3,452 posts	0 J2R Has anyone on here explored the 'Easy Interval Method', as outlined in this book - amazon.co.uk - and discussed in this article - https://medium.com/@andywaterman/reactivity-806ec9694fc3? I came across it recently, introduced to the concept by a Dutch running friend who was familiar with it from way back, and I find it fascinating. It's such a radical idea - you hardly do any 'steady state' running at all, your training pretty well consists of daily intervals at a fast but not frenetic pace (e.g., 6 x 1km reps at around HM pace), with equal distance jogging recoveries. At first sight it seems daft, flying in the face of all standard training thinking. But I have to say once you start looking it it gets more and more convincing, and the arguments behind it seem sound. It's based around the idea that doing your training miles this way means you have around the same overall average pace for the session as you would if you did the whole thing at a steady pace, but you build and enhance what the author calls 'reactivity', translated from the Dutch 'souplesse', meaning a kind of springiness which leads to better running economy - and improvements in your running economy are a more likely way to deliver you the results than improvements in VO2max. The guy behind it, Klaas Lok, was a top Dutch runner in his day and this is what he did (building on the ideas of his coach, Verhoul). Worth a look, for certain, if only out of curiosity. I'm trying it out but melding it for the moment with my existing running programme rather than put all my eggs in the one basket.
runningmumof3boys Mar 2021 7:11am, 10 Mar 2021 4,235 posts	0 runningmumof3boys No I haven’t sounds interesting though ! I put off my weekly interval session for as long as I can do not sure how I’d get on with daily ones!!
Canute Mar 2021 3:38pm, 10 Mar 2021 2,410 posts	0 Canute I have experimented with this but do not regard myself as an authority on the topic. Nonetheless, in my experience the easy intervals are very tolerable and actually enjoyable. Daily sessions do not become a chore. However, my first concern is whether or not the lack of intense intervals might take the edge of performance in middle distances. The successful outcome for Faith Kipyegon (gold in the 1500m at Rio) described in the book suggests that for at least some runners this is not a problem. My second concern is whether or not the lack of traditional long runs might impair marathon performance. However apparently Geoffrey Kirui used this method (26:55 10k and World Marathon Champion in 2017). I do not know what type of long runs Kirui did in 2017. Therefore, I think that it is worth a trial if your current programme does not appear to be working for you. Overall, I am still an advocate of polarised training.
Dvorak Mar 2021 4:01pm, 10 Mar 2021 22,106 posts	0 Dvorak Maybe it would work. Similar is probably done by most people doing run-walk intervals (as I do). My main objection would be that it's just not the type of running I would want to do. I do want a training benefit from my runs, by and large. I'm currently at the level where pretty much doing anything gives me that benefit. Going forward, turning all my running into a rigid intervals programme, with a weekend fartlek, would be anathema to me. It's not why I run. Link to Medium: medium.com
J2R Mar 2021 4:37pm, 10 Mar 2021 3,456 posts	0 J2R Canute, yes, I too am an advocate of polarised running (and your contributions to the polarised running thread were what brought me to Fetch a few years ago). And in fact my current programme largely is working for me - I am just interested in this out of curiosity rather than necessity (and am keen to avoid making too many changes to something which works). I would not say, though, that this system goes wholly against the grain of polarised training - the basic focus is similarly on making sure you are fully recovered, although the timescales are clearly different! The way I am approaching it initially is by replacing 2-3 of my easy runs with these sessions. But I cover the same distance at the same overall average pace as my normal easy runs, and they're still easy runs even if done quite differently. I believe it may in fact have been you that came up with one of my favourite definitions of how an easy run should feel, that you could easily go out and do the same thing again, and that's the way I feel with these sessions - not at all beaten up as I would after a 'proper' interval session. Dvorak, I know exactly what you mean. My main problem with this system is that it's a bit antisocial, you can't easily go for a run with a friend and that's part of the joy of running. But I would say that the sessions needn't feel that rigid - I went for a 12km run yesterday in the countryside, alternating fast and slow kilometres, and it felt like a perfectly pleasant run. It didn't feel hard or monotonous.
larkim Mar 2021 8:42am, 11 Mar 2021 13,721 posts	0 larkim Sounds to me like a reinforcement of the fact that there's no one right formula for developing running performance, certainly into an acceptable window of performance. Whatever "works" for individuals has to meet both their "mental" desires (i.e. how they enjoy running in that style / volume / pace) and the idiosyncracies of how their "physical" state adapts (i.e. not everyone's body responds exactly the same to the same stimuli). Everyone is an experiment of one, so if approach A "works" in the sense of creating performance progression, you'll never know whether approach B, C, D or E would have worked better or worse. The concept sounds appealing to me though I have to say.
Rosehip Mar 2021 11:13am, 11 Mar 2021 20,072 posts	0 Rosehip Sounds interesting Most of my running is done as run-walk at the moment, as that allows me to run greater volume with a decent form, instead of a shuffle-plod, than "steady-state" does. I am running the run bits at quicker than my current HM pace, but probably around what it used to be. For now, the intervals are less than 1k, but ~half a mile at a time is where I've been aiming for. Book looks worth a read. More importantly: Hi Canute waves it's good to "see" you
McGoohan Mar 2021 11:20am, 11 Mar 2021 48,870 posts	0 McGoohan I ordered this book and it is arriving today. Fancied a look-see.
SPR Mar 2021 11:34am, 11 Mar 2021 33,538 posts	0 SPR As the article says it's not new, Zatopek said did this. As as it also said, LSD has been misrepresented but I think training has moved on from you need to avoid speed in certain points of the year if it was ever there. I've long said on here that interval/ repetition training can be used to train in any way continuous training can, it's just in certain instances, one might be better than the other. Despite being someone that does middle distance, I don't do the traditional week or constant intervals. I'm not saying my training is ideal though, there's lots of good and great MD athletes training you can analyse to see what's ideal. There always seems to be a battle around the two when in reality for most, it's just about balance rather than either/ or Faith Kipyegon was mentioned earlier. I'd be interested in seeing the schedule.
J2R Mar 2021 12:22pm, 11 Mar 2021 3,458 posts	0 J2R I have long had a (tongue-in-cheek) set of running programmes for different levels of runners, which I actually think would bring big improvements all round for many: 1. BEGINNERS: Do a bit of running, at varied paces. 2. INTERMEDIATE: Do a fair amount of running, at varied paces. 3. ADVANCED: Do lots of running, at varied paces. The point, of course, is the 'varied paces', which an amazing number of runners don't do - they go out and run the same distance at the same pace a handful of times a week and never make the progress they want, when simply mixing it up a bit would help a lot. This programme is that idea taken a good few steps further. The 200m, 400m and 1000m reps are all done at different paces, so you don't stagnate. You also end up doing a decent amount of approximate race pace running without the damage that this does if you overdo it. In my case I do my 200m reps at 5K pace or a bit faster, my 400m reps at around 10K pace or a bit slower and my 1000m reps at somewhere between HM and marathon pace. So each week I'm doing plenty of running at the kind of paces I might actually be running at in races - but not getting wiped out by it. I suppose what I like about the idea is its focus on running as a SKILL which you develop. The biggest improvements in most people's times are not going to be from improvements in VO2max but in running economy, making better use of the oxygen you are taking up. You're training yourself to do the same things with your legs and feet that the Vaporfly shoes do, give better energy return, so you use less oxygen for the same effort. As I said, I'm not throwing myself into this lock, stock and barrel, because I'm happy enough with how things are going with my regular training programme. I'm incorporating some elements while leaving other things unchanged. But I can't deny the idea fascinates me rather! And the idea of being a little less beaten up has a definite appeal to me as an older runner.