It seems like a lot of people suggest building mileage up, then adding workouts. This is obvious in the high school training approach, build mileage for 3 months with few to no workouts, then workout for 3 months with no increases in mileage.
Is this the way to do it? Would the results be similar if the athlete built up to their mileage goal over 6 months with fairly frequent workouts, assuming the total volume of running was held constant (so runner A and runner B both run say, 1600 miles in the 6 months)
A slower build with more consistent workouts is a more attractive training plan to me, and I was curious if anyone had any really strong opinions about how school of thought is better than the other. I know they are proponents and detractors of periodization on this board, so all thoughts are welcome.