Back when I started running in the 1990s, the western distance running world seemed fixated on low volume, high intensity training.
During previous eras, there were periods of similar training focus interspersed with periods of high volume, mostly low intensity training.
Neither of these was ideal.
It seems like training goes through cycles like this. We swing from high volume, low intensity to low volume, high intensity. We also tend to latch on to whatever seems to be working for one high achieving individual or a relatively small group of high achieving individuals. For example, right now there’s plenty of talk about the “Norwegian method” of double threshold workouts, basically two slightly dialed back threshold workouts in a day.
What is the result of these swings and grabbing on to whatever is the “hot” workout of the day? I believe the result is that we miss the middle ground, where all of the different ideas and methods can mesh into each other to create more optimal training. What if we were to smooth out these training methods and either alternate volume and intensity or do more moderate volumes without quite as much intensity included? We can still get in good volume but maybe a little less. We can still get in some good workouts but maybe 2-3 a week instead of 4-5 a week and maybe have a little more left at the end of each workout.
We can also cycle through periods of higher volume with lower intensity and periods of lower volume with higher intensity. Remember periodized training? Maybe a not quite so polarized version of periodization would be good.
It is my belief, based on observations of a few decades worth of watching the latest “hot” training ideas that the optimal path is usually at least a bit in the opposite direction of whatever is hot right now.
If we were to look at what is hot right now, then look at least slightly the other way, we might find something that would work even better.