'Easy Interval Method'

18 watchers

Prev
1
2
3
4
5
Next
Last

flyingfinn Mar 2021 1:17pm, 11 Mar 2021 2,563 posts	0 flyingfinn I always tend to think that training programmes are to a large extent like diet programmes. When followed to the letter pretty much all diets boil down to getting people to focus on what they eat all the time and result in a reduced calorific intake. I have seen a number of studies (e.g. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ) comparing diets and they all reach pretty much the same conclusion, "Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize." i.e. all diets work because they reduce intake. With running most runners spend a large amount of their time just running with no focussed plan. A lot of their runs just happen or perhaps more importantly don't happen, get cut short, are run too fast etc. Once they get on a programme and stick to it they go out out when they might of otherwise sacked it off because it's cold, windy, CBA (after all it's only one run...), feel tired etc, they include the recovery elements properly, because that's what the plan says and so on. The end result is that they're 'training' not just running and in the majority of cases doing more running, more consistently and in the case of most runners I suspect that is the key. At the end of the day the great unspoken truth of running that doesn't get mentioned, largely because it doesn't fit the modern mindset of trying to find a cool shortcut for everything, is that for most runners the simplest way to improve as a runner is to do more, more consistently. Yes it's a law of diminishing returns but in 40 years I'm yet to meet a runner for whom an increase in the amount of running they did without breaking didn't lead to an improvement in their performance. IMHO what all reasonable training programmes tend to do when followed correctly is allow runners to increase the amount of running they do on a consistent basis whilst at the same time reducing the chance of them breaking. Which approach works for which runner is I suspect largely down to belief. If the runner buys in to an approach and sticks to it for a reasonable period then they will see results. As Larkim says having that belief is largely down to the individual's mindset and for anyone with a modicum of experience a feeling of what works for them physically but in the vast majority of cases if you believe and you stick to a programme you will see gains in the same way sticking with a diet will see you lose weight.
faithfulred Mar 2021 1:24pm, 11 Mar 2021 623 posts	0 faithfulred ^^This^^. For most non-elite runners, more consistent running = improvement, irrespective of what type of running it is.
SailorSteve Mar 2021 1:27pm, 11 Mar 2021 1,898 posts	0 SailorSteve I generally revert to this quote if anyone suggests there may be an “easier” way to improving one’s running: “What was the secret, they wanted to know; in a thousand different ways they wanted to know The Secret. And not one of them was prepared, truly prepared to believe that it had not so much to do with chemicals and zippy mental tricks as with that most unprofound and sometimes heart-rending process of removing, molecule by molecule, the very tough rubber that comprised the bottoms of his training shoes. The Trial of Miles; Miles of Trials.” John L. Parker Jr., Once a Runner
J2R Mar 2021 1:46pm, 11 Mar 2021 3,459 posts	0 J2R flyingfinn, yes, I agree. SailorSteve, there are surely ways of improving one's running that are more efficient than others? Yes, I know you have to put the work in, but what work you do and how is going to affect the results. I think you may be misunderstanding what this method is about. When the author talks about the 'Easy Interval Method', he's not saying this is an easy way to get fast, he's saying that the intervals are done at an easier pace than normal - these are not flat out, gasping for breath, about to die, intervals, they're at a pace which feels fast but not hard. So it's not an interval method which is easy, it's a method which uses easy intervals, if that makes sense. I should say that I'm not a devotee or disciple, rather someone who is intrigued by the idea, but I just wouldn't want to see it misrepresented.
Nicholls595 Mar 2021 1:54pm, 11 Mar 2021 24,071 posts	0 Nicholls595 Lampposts Intervals always used to be called lampposts. Jog to the next lamppost, flat out for 2 lampposts, jog one lamppost recovery etc etc.
SPR Mar 2021 1:55pm, 11 Mar 2021 33,543 posts	0 SPR The classification of normal pace for intervals doesn't and has never made sense, it always depends on what you're trying to achieve. scienceofrunning.com
Nicholls595 Mar 2021 1:55pm, 11 Mar 2021 24,072 posts	0 Nicholls595 I do something similar around the memorial gardens at the top of the park opposite my house. 200m loops.
Angus Clydesdale Mar 2021 1:57pm, 11 Mar 2021 22,129 posts	0 Angus Clydesdale Lampposts is what we used to call fartlecks.
SailorSteve Mar 2021 3:00pm, 11 Mar 2021 1,899 posts	0 SailorSteve Hi J2R, apologies. I’m certainly not suggesting that you’re a zealot or that there isn’t some merit in the method. You are an experienced runner (and quick) and I’m sure that you have enough miles on the clock to be able to introduce new methods or components of plans into your routine in a measured way. My point is that whilst there are many ways to skin the running improvement cat, the fundamental planks in anyone’s running platform are consistency (ie running regularly to build a base) and staying fit. That’s why I highlight the “trial of miles”. Without the base volume, notions of speed, intervals and all the rest are just hypothetical, yet this is often where people focus. It’s my contention that to be able to stay fit, run regularly and recover sufficiently to string seasons and campaigns together, one should run a high proportion (c90% in my case) of their miles at their version of “easy”. Once a runner is working with a base of c30+ mpw it’s maybe time to introduce something like the method you’ve highlighted; some folk do their own informal lamppost/fartlek variation; others prefer the track and a stopwatch etc. The method espoused by the book appears to promote its intervals-based approach as an alternative to long runs. I may be a dinosaur but in my view this is putting the cart before the horse, particularly if targeting half or marathon race distance. But the author is a Dutch champion and I’m a mid-pack plodder, so maybe there is something in it!
faithfulred Mar 2021 4:35pm, 11 Mar 2021 626 posts	0 faithfulred I think it comes down to whatever gets you out the door. If you find long and slow tedious, it might be a good idea to try new things, but if you're more likely to put off a run just at the thought of an interval session, then that probably isn't the right approach for you (at this moment in time).