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

Depends what they are doing. If they are doing 35 mpw with a 4 mile tempo run and a day of 12x400 at 5k pace they are going to struggle to get much faster with more quality. If they are just easy jogging, sure intensity can get them 10%.

in HS, we dominated xc by running 45-55mpw while other schools ran harder but only 30-35mpw. We were 16:30(for the team)runners. They were 17:40. It was pretty much exactly what studies suggest the vo2max gains from more volume would be. I used to think our coach screwed up since we basically just did races(granted we ran like 10-12 races) and easy distance with only a half dozen workouts but now I think he was right. Pushing volume over intensity was the right move. Now if we could have ran our easy runs 30s slower and done 60mpw and been even better? Probably… but man the ego of 16 year old couldn’t deal with that. And there was enough stuff like lydiards steady pace advice that made running 90s off 5k pace seem like a good idea…

You need intensity. Just not a ton of it for distance racing.

The average runner doing 30 miles per week is probably doing too much intensity. The problem is they are not aerobically developed enough to get a great return on the speedwork. It fills out their week and the recovery from it probably stops them running more or longer

This type of argument drives me up the wall, people are saying volume but they're actually talking about increasing total workload which has an obvious effect. If only volume matters then 100% long slow distance and very infrequent racing would be king, instead that just about the only training method that hasn't lead to great results.

Maybe the fact that most elites are still doing tens of kilometers of high-intensity running per week is as important as their total mileage. Maybe hobby joggers should start there, especially since they are almost always time limited and aren't training hard enough, instead of trying to copy an 80/20 distribution or worse while only running three or four days a week.

Peter Snell once said that your success as a runner was determined by the amount of work you can do race pace or near it and what determined how much work you can do at or near race pace was determined by the amount of aerobic conditioning you've done.

Yes, I think most ways you slice it volume is very effective. I also wanted to make the discussion broad by including less fit and developing runners because I think they have the most to gain from a simple volume increase. Not only as Snell describes by building that big base but also by achieving general fitness and running adaptation.

I am also not a fan of using the elites as models for less experienced runners because their training is much more specialized and they're abilities are abnormal. Advising a runner like this to strive for an equivalent to pro-level workouts is just not realistic and I'd think would lead to injury rather than the "100% slow volume" derided.

Peter Snell is still talking about workload regardless of if he implicitly acknowledges it or not. This whole "aerobic conditioning" thing has its roots in the aerobic vs anaerobic misconception. We now know there is only one energy system and there is a wide range of intensities that lead to the adaptations runners require, most importantly a high VO2 max, a right/down-shifted lactate threshold, and good running economy. This is backed by people like Bob Schul who became exceptional runners doing almost exclusively 100-400 meter intervals, because spoilers, workload is what actually matters and volume is just a means to an end.

There is certainly nothing special you get from jogging 10 minute miles that you wouldn't get in a higher dose from running a similar duration at a tempo pace or greater intensity. It's the amateurs that can typically handle a greater proportion of this because they have much more time to recover between runs and they cannot devote all their time to training anyway.

Ironically it's people pretending they're training like elites that gets them into the trap of trading intensity for volume while still not increasing workload. There are an awful lot of bad runners out there who say they are still focusing on their "base training" when in reality they just like doing easy runs and are trying to justify it.

I know you're correct about the one energy system thing but we still need ways to describe things and the "aerobic vs. anaerobic" dichotomy is useful here. A comfortable run of ninety minutes is a different thing from an hour of hard intervals and describing one of these runs as aerobic and the other as anaerobic gives a good description of what you'll experience in each session. It's probably more accurate to describe one run as one where you get out of breath and one where you don't but that seems a bit unwieldy.

The big thing in your post that I agree with is that a big training load, whatever that may mean individually, is really the key. Yes, Igloi's runners did lots and lots of faster running mostly year round but they did it in ways that allowed them to do a lot of running. Gordon Pirie was known for doing lots of intervals but he'd often do a steady run of up to ninety minutes before starting his reps.

A bit of thread diversion.

Very few now see the terms aerobic/anaerobic as with oxygen/without oxygen, but rather in terms of fueling i.e. burning fat/burning carbs. Of course this is also not really correct.

except of course it is impossible. You can not go out at do 10-14 hours of volume at tempo run pace in a week like you can with easy running.

This is the whole point of the Norwegian system. Better to do 60 mins of slower running (like marathon pace) instead of running 15-20mjns at vo2max. Those vo2 session test very well in the lab. In the real world people struggle to do them for more than 8-10 weeks without breaking down.

For most people volume is the answer because they aren’t close to the point of diminishing returns. Doing a minimal amount of fast stuff gets you pretty close. Guys like Nenow and Clarke were running 27:30s off basically just running 10 milers.

now if you limit the volume (only going to train 45 mins 4x week) then yeah intensity is your answer. But that is a different question

Interesting. I am very happy to have Igloi's methods mentioned because I find them fascinating, even if my understanding of them is very limited. I know a broad range of elite runners had success with his methods but I do wonder if his interval system is applicable to more recreational and developing runners. Whenever I have looked an Igloi training plan, it always strikes me as high intensity and one I think would cause injuries in runners who aren't to the level of Schul or Tabori. But maybe I am wrong as it has also struck me how much more precise the efforts on Igloi's intervals seem, which probably allow for the volume of intervals to be completed. I know there are a few on these boards who have a better idea of Igloi's training and maybe some who trained under Tabori or other Igloi disciples who know of a modified version.

It's always the same debate here when we talk about the need of high volume or not. The people here advocate and always say " up the mileage" do that because they don't know, they simply don't have the knowledge and experience, how to effectively reach individual top performance on just relatively low volume.They don't understand there are really " junk mileage" and the opposit " high energy power low mileage" optimizing mitochondria, enzymes and capillaries and still stay in the easy running zone.Just ask you the question, " How is it possible several runners in history have accomplished world class top times on relatively low mileage? ". Many try to explain it by saying it must have to do with they are just supertalented and had run even faster on more volume. After now over 50 years of running experience, both as a national elite runner and now 8 years as an online running coach I can say with 100% sureness they are wrong. It's mainly about perfect individual ' exact' paces and a smart weekly low mileage training mix to fast improve with less risk of injuries and overdoing.🇸🇪🧙‍♂️🇸🇪

Serious question: do you mean there's only one energy system, or that the energy systems all "turn on" simultaneously? I have a hard time accepting the proposition that the same "energy system" is responsible for what's happening in a 10 meter start @ 100% and a 5k jog, unless we're just playing definitional games about the breadth of the concept of "energy system."

Happy to be wrong though, as I'm trying to always learn.

I can say with 100% "sureness" you are wrong.

Evidence? How many years ago has Sammy Nyokaye run his most recent PR?

Ingebrigtsens do high mileage. Kelvin Kiptum does high mileage.

There are 2 problems with you:

1 - you hold on to the few exceptions and try to make them the rule.

2 - your ego.

I steadily increased mileage throughout college. 60s as a freshman, 70s as a sophomore, 80s as a junior, 90 as a senior, 90-100 as a 5th year. My best times came as a junior. 80-90 seemed to be my sweet spot. I regressed after that. I tried running even more post collegiately. 110, 120 even 140. I only got worse.

Previously aerobic was with oxygen and anaerobic was without oxygen.

We now know that oxygen is used at every effort level, including short sprints.

Yeah, that's what I get when I said "all systems turn on at the same time." Sprinters are still using oxygen, but the ATP used in the first few seconds isn't primarily being generated by breathing + glucose. Right?

Were you faster at 100 than 50? I am guessing noticeably. No one can say if your limit is at 10 hours of training or 14. But odds are it isn’t down at 6.

If someone is running 10+ hours, volume wouldn’t be my first concern. Running 3 hours? It is all volume…

As I understand it, in essence there are two distinct energy transfer mechanisms that both serve to re-synthesize ATP but there is no true divide between them nor can they be fully isolated from each other when training thus it can be considered just one system. So when you're doing a near maximal effort, the bulk the ATP production is still "aerobic", you're never without oxygen or "anaerobic", and presumably you're getting most of the adaptations that happen at lower intensity in addition to the ones that are more of the result of 'VO2 max intensity'.

Physiologists hate the word anaerobic yet they still haven't come to an agreement on what should replace it. I've heard substrate-level phosphorylation and hyperglycolytic suggested but that is very confusing to lay people like myself and as long as we acknowledge that it isn't binary like was previously thought then it's largely just a matter of semantics.

It's an eternal road to travel with this discussion. We both could list loads of people who have done well without big volume, whatever "well" might mean, even at the marathon. But when you look at the very top people, the ones who win or place well in major or championship races, it's really hard to find any not doing a lot of miles. I know your plan is to change that but so far it's hard not to think you're wrong when you say it's possible to win major races without high miles. When you've actually done it rather than just saying it can be done I'll give you credit.