I ran my best in my senior year when I was the fastest guy in our middle distance group by a considerable amount.
A group of five guys were always running workouts together. They were definitely a little bit easier for me and a little bit too hard for the other guys who inevitably raced below what their workouts indicated they "should" run.
I'm a believer in volume but this got me thinking and just want to shoot the sh1t here re volume trumps intensity. I know the volume allows you to be able to handle the intensity but slow easy running is largely to keep you consistent and hitting workouts better. For someone who can handle ie 100k weeks with a long run and 2 good sessions, would moving that up to 120k and cutting a workout to reduce the intensity to handle the volume really benefit more than keeping the intensity and sacrificing some volume?
Maybe. Depends on goals and race distances.
Maybe running the 120k a week during base and early season, then doing the 100k with more intensity later works better than just choosing one or the other.
getting on a track 1 x a week. It could be 200/300m/400 reps or VO2/ threshold any workouts. but I cannot run nearly as fast as I do on a track anywhere else. I believe getting my legs to run at a faster pace with less effort say than running on a road or path has translated to pretty good results for me. I have a goal to run on the 1 x a week and so far I've done it for over a year now. Some people have track access where they live but most don't so that's the hard part. I'm out there usually on Tuesday or Friday at 5am with headlamp. It sucks but try it and I bet you will see the results yourself.