Rita, fair point but I'd agree with Andrew and I'd also raise another point. When these better methods come along, those who follow them do rise to the top. It didn't take long for Lydiard's runners to make a splash. Likewise with those who took advantage of altitude training and those who moved on to the live high/train low philosophy.
The point I'm trying to make is that people go out searching for the “best” method but, instead of looking to what the elites do to be the best of the best, they look to what authors write and what works to some level for average runners. If these plans in books or magazines were really the best method, we'd be hearing from Daniels and Pfitzinger followers who were winning major races. I'm not saying Daniels and Pfitz are bad, I actually think they are very good and their ideas can be very successfully incorporated into a training plan that might be the “best” plan. However, there are thousands of runners out there following these plans. The fact that none are out winning major races tells me that, if you're looking for the best performance possible, there is apparently a better way.
If you want a very good and very well tested plan, pick up Pfitz or Daniels and follow it as closely as you can. If you want the best, though, as Andrew suggested, look for those common threads in the training of the best of the best, make them the core of your training, then figure out what the auxiliary pieces are that work best for you.