This conclusion is true as far as it goes, but it does not support the notion that a speed-based training approach is better for runners and other endurance athletes than a mostly-slow approach. The reason, as Stephen Seiler well knew, is that the studies upon which it is based are far removed from the real world. For starters, the subjects are always nonathletes, never trained runners. How would the results of the Old Dominion study have differed if the subjects had come into the experiment having already developed their aerobic capacity with prior training?
