I think the big thing with this is not so much about world records, per se - someone will always come back and say, El Gerrouj trained differently, or Peter Snell did something different all together, whatever - but how this system (when performed with proper intensity management) allows a large cross section of athletes to train consistently for a long time with relatively low exposure to injury.
If you're the Chinese state you can afford to put athletes through the most destructive training regime possible, so long as you end up with a single gold medal winner at the end of it - who cares about the 2000 injured athletes who will never compete again? Same goes in Kenya or Ethiopia, and even in the US, there seems to be an acceptance that striving for the highest performance is going to leave a lot of athletes broken - and with so many talented runners leaving the NCAA each year, maybe that's fine.
But in a rich, small, social democratic country like Norway, that model isn't going to cut it. Whereas a model that demands a lot of time and significant investment in technology but that gets a lot of people to within say, 98% of their potential without damaging them is likely to do well.
Anecdotally, the big advantage of the Norwegian approach seems to be that fewer athletes suffer career ending injuries or burnout etc when they're strict with the intensities