I don't feel any necessity of justifying myself but I'd still like to make some comments before somelike like yourself going out spreading misinformation by twisting the content of someone else's post or comments.
No, I don't think Mills was lazy at all. 70 miles per week is a decent mileage and here's what I understand he did: he told Lydiard that he tried to run 100 miles a week (by the way, he WAS influenced by Lydiardism via Pat Clohessy just in case you didn't know) but couldn't do it. In other words, he at least tried to see how far he could go without breaking down. In other words, he tried to see what's the optimum mileage he could do without breaking down instead of seeking some examples of someone else running less than so-and-so and settled for less. In fact, throught his own mouth, I heard him say that he "ran every day, twice a day, 200 miles a week" (which I think he was blowing the hone anyways...). No, he wasn't lazy at all and never did I even think he was.
Same with Pre. I have an old Runner's World interview of Pre and he said he was "not a mega mileage type. (I) only train about 95 miles a week." Pre ran long and hard, occasinally ran 15 miles with Frank Shorter; did a 2-hour run on Sunday, etc.
I'd call someone lazy soul when he/she is too busy looking for an example of someone running 70 miles a week beating someone else running 100 miles a week; concluding LESS IS BETTER and settle for 30 miles a week thinking he can beat someone training 50 miles or 70 miles a week.
You might have gone up to 100MPW, I don't know. If that didn't work for you, you probably didn't balance your training right. Don't spread the wrong information that, throughout the history of distance running, people who ran less always beat people who ran more and doing less is always better than doing more. That just ain't true.
I wouldn't make ANY comment on Ryun Hall because I just don't know what he's doing. You seem to know; but if he really is not running 20 miles, he probably wouldn't do well comes London Marathon.