In general..............so called faster growing plants do not really grow faster per se, they just are better at getting, tolerating CO2 issues.
You have a CO2 issue, light is good, EI will allow you to avoid test kits forever.
It's much easier to work on a large tank when it's 1/2 full and draining, refilling, use a comb and trim away any hard to detangle pklants, add plants that are easier to clean the algae off for a bit, then add the ones you like back later.
Plants are available for sale, trade etc all the time
Good CO2, and pruning will help the most.
You might end up eyeballing CO2.
Never think you know
the CO2 is "good"
That is a pipe dream.
Many do and go off on long goose chases.
95% or more of issues are CO2 related.
Note, reducing light also reduces CO2 demand also.
So that can be modified in many cases to solve a higher CO2 demand that you can manage.
Obviously if you go too low, no good..............
But lower light = easier management for this very reason: easier to target CO2.
And if you are in that crowd that like to claim lower nutrients = no algae(baloney....... but that's the "flat earth" crowd too) or think that some plants do and look better with low nutrients(also baloney, I can and have easily shown this to be false with every single species they have ever speculated.........go figure), still, if that is your goal and you find it "works" for you personally, then less light will achieve that goal far better
If you start with a speculation/hypothesis, look at other simple ways at where plant growth all starts: light.
Then go to CO2.
Do not be a "smug know it all" and think you know it all about CO2. You will get burnt and most do. Some weasel around it by reducing say PO4, this can strongly limit CO2 demand 2-3x depending on the intensity, but too much limitation really can cause issues and GSA. This indirectly limits CO2.
These folks believe that they do not need as much CO2, or think they have plenty, maybe think fish are stressed by it etc, that low PO4 is some how better and non Toxic(PO4 is extremely non toxic to us, fish and plants at insane levels FYI).
Point is, they are missing the indirect effects about why algae is present and growing. It's not limiting PO4 that is reducing their algae, it's stable non limiting CO2 demand from plants. Plants are more limited by PO4 than CO2.
However, when we test their theory, we see that we can add plenty of PO4, and never have algae issues, GSA etc either..........as long as we also account for CO2.
This model explains both observations and is confirmed by good careful testing. Their model does not explain how/why the aquariums with 3 ppm of PO4 and good CO2 does not have algae.
Thus such "theories", must be rejected and assumed to be false.
They do not explain a test where the CO2 is independent
Folks are tempted to rush to conclusion and do not test their theories.
We cannot blame folks for it, but they should also realize the error.