Simply put, is volume the easiest "catch all" answer for improving running?

That's like saying, "I see many Volkswagens with high octane fuel put in them, but it will not make them the next Ferrari." More volume will bring them closer to their maximum distance running performance, but they aren't starting with, and will never come close to the physiological potential that an elite distance runner starts off with.

I am 55. I run 20 MP doing 2 quality days and 2 easy days. I have a work buddy who is 45. He has been running 75 MPW for 20 years at 9-10 minute mile pace. His lifetime PR is 24 minutes while I still run 17 minutes.

kind of an apples to oranges comparison.

We have a thread here saying that Kiptum runs 300 km a week at times. He's averaging 4:37 a mile for multiple reasons one of which is volume.

and there are so many other variables.

how does he do at longer distances such as the marathon. i would expect him to do better than you at the marathon if he was inclined to run one. the point being there are other variables that could explain things logically....

but i get the sense from you that you just wanted to pump yourself up and look down on your "buddy" who runs more than you (probably because he just likes running) because you don't like him running so much. it's the same attitude that some people look down on exercise in general. "you're going to the gym, again???? i only go once a month and i look so much better than you!!!!" okay, take it easy, your insecurity is showing.

If you are not individually addressing each runners needs it’s lazy coaching.

Good running technique is a must and the starting point with strength training that pinpoint weak links. Now you can add miles/volume.

If you are not doing this you are setting yourself up for disappointment and greater chance of injury down the line.

Galen Rupp after winning silver in Olympics 10000 said he focused on good technique.

I would argue this is heavily dependent on your event. For the marathon, time on feet training in the form of easy mileage is essential. For the middle distances (800/1500) long, slow distance actually cements running form that is inconsistent with how you want to move during middle distance events. Great example is Alen Webb deciding to run 140mpw towards the end of his career. He actually ended up running slower on that training than when he used pool training in substitute of running for all his easy days.

I would argue that excess amount of time spent easy running can often be more harmful than good, perhaps even for the longer distances like 5k/10k. Renato Canova put it well, "Volume isn't important, volume at intensity is". This is a man who coached several 2:03 marathoners on 60-85 miles per week. The catch: up to 60% of their weekly mileage was at marathon pace, as opposed to a typical American's 15-20% following the Pfitzinger model.

I'm not saying mileage is bad. Low mileage & high mileage approaches have proven successful for certain individuals. However, the reality is high mileage approaches will always be more time-consuming, so why wouldn't athletes opt for a low-mileage approach if it could yield the same results?

The OP is talking about Cook amd Valby. You LSD runners moved the topic to marathons. The basic person who is running 25 MPW at 10 minute pace would improve 5k time much more by incorporating quality as opposed to more miles..

Mileage is strongly correlated with racing success, 5000m to 50K (I don't have an opinion beyond 50K).

This is a guy who coaches elite athletes with long history of high mileage. They already have the base.

A guy in his mid 40s consistently running 75 mpw and he hasn't broken 24 minutes for 5K? I don't believe this for a second.

Yes and he set it in his late 30s. He runs slower now and complains constantly. He barely races 5k at a faster pace than he does 10 mile training runs.

Join a running club and you will see that this is more the norm than the exception.

That's wild. Most of the guys in my club who do any sort of serious training at all (like anything more than 20 mpw) are easily running in the low 20s for 5K. The only guys I can think of that run slower than 24 min 5Ks are either really old, hardly do any training, or are overweight. But none of those guys are anywhere near 75 mpw. There are only a few of us that are anywhere near 75 mpw and we are well under 20 minutes for 5K.

For people training for 10k and upwards, I'd say increased volume is important. I've never seen anyone who moved to 100mpw and didn't improve markedly. Of course, you still need different types of training within that 100 mpw but give me any two runners with a standard two workouts plus a long run schedule, one doing 50 mpw and the other doing 100 mpw, I'll back the guy doing 100 mpw.

There are outliers, as you'd expect. I know someone who ran 2:30-2:40 several times for the marathon and only did around 35 mpw because that's all his body could manage. But for an average runner, more miles will always be better.

I would argue that for serious runners who have serious patience, the key is to build up to running 2 hours per day, every day, in two runs and maybe one long run on the weekend. Don’t force the pace. Let the pace come to you over many, many weeks and years. You will get naturally faster. You feel good, push the pace and especially the last few miles. You feel badly, take it easy. Don’t worry about structure so much. Just go run iterations of hard or easy or medium over hills and on as much dirt/grass as is possible. Maybe do some form drills and Pilates to keep limber and sharp.

Unfortunately, most runners don’t have the patience to let these aerobic benefits accrue over many years, so they force it and either get injured or burned out. Two hours per day, perhaps starting at age 20, is probably the best way for most runners to improve and get the closest to their potential. Once the consistency is there, then they can start focusing on more structure and tailoring to a specific event.

One of my favorite things is when people clearly don't understand the definition of diminishing returns. A diminishing return is still a gain. For example, you put in one hour of training and you gain 5 units. You put in 2 hours and now you have 9 units. Your return is diminishing because the 2nd hour only got you 4 units. IT'S STILL POSITIVE. There may be a point of NEGATIVE return. For example if I did a 3rd hour of training and only got 8 units. That would mean the 3rd hour got me -1.

Can anyone help ballpark how much of a difference running a program averaging 60 vs 75 vs 90 mpw (all else held constant) has on a marathon result? Say for a pretty mediocre early 30-something with a 3:00ish marathon time off a 50mpw plan.

I actually think one of the benefits of high mileage is that it is less time consuming than higher intensity. While it may appear on paper that obviously longer and slower running takes more time than fast, short reps, I think you need to factor in things like warmup and recovery. A long and particular warmup is very important in preparation for a high intensity session and it's also important to recover proper afterwards. I think this is why volume is an easy and basic way to improve. Rather than dialing in and gearing a week towards specific sessions, you can just prescribe distances and tempos, then adjust the amount of cross-training needed based on how the athlete feels.

I, of course, see the diminishing returns for the highly trained athletes mentioned but part of my point was that volume is a good, basic way for everyone to improve. I think volume suffers from it's ease of incorporation and effectiveness to a degree because it is so appealing, but then people can get injured or go past the point of diminishing returns. In his FloTrack Driven series, Alan Webb himself even admits that he and his coach believed "more is better" and it led to problems. But, my broader point was that for someone like Webb he is riding a much finer line than say a high school sophomore running 4:40 on 30 mpw and no cross-training. For the high school miler, it is probably not much to ask for some additional mileage or cross-training and this added volume would very likely improve times.