Thanks again for all your posts. I know that you don't want to turn this into a discussion about your training but just to clarify:
"Most of my runs were probably run somewhere between 3.45 and 4.00 pr km. I never timed these and I never ran on measured courses. Part of the build up I also ran on snow witch means that the actual times are slower if you use the same energy. These times are an estimate made later. The point is that these runs were not hard runs. I would often run them by myself and think of other things than running just covering distance and not worry about pace. They almost always had a recreational aspect.
These runs were coupled with quality distancework of hard runs and intervals with very sort rest say 1600m with 1 min rest."
I take it that you mean that you were doing basic mileage, with one workout of a "hard run" and "intervals with very short rest" all in your build up phase which lasted until the track season.
It is interesting because my experience is that many runners thrive of this kind of training but today, not many people try this anymore as you say.
I guess, and this is nothing new, that a runner with very good basic speed is probably going to go well with interval work and more intensive training all year around. Coe was able to run 400m in 50 seconds when he was 16 years old. Running repetitions on the track at say 60 seconds/400m was probably not very stressful for him thinking in relative terms so he could take it week in week out. Moorcroft also had fairly good speed, under 50seconds for 400m I think, so again he could also try the intensive approach.
On the other hand runners with poor basic speed are maybe wasting their efforts when they try the intensive interval training apporach hoping that they will become faster.
There may be exceptions to this such as Ovett who ran high mileage, but generally this may be the rule.