Running Enigmas

I often over analyze... well everything.  However, I restrict my post to things running in order to stick with the theme of my blog.  Some of the things that I've been thinking about lately are listed below.  If you have any answers, or questions of your own, please feel free to share - I welcome your thoughts.

Mileage Allocation
Everyone agrees about the general concepts of weekly mileage.  For example, when training for a particular event, one should peak at a certain mileage in a given week at the appropriate time prior to that event.  People generally agree that more mileage is good (as long as you're not causing yourself injury or over training).  So here is my question.  Are all weeks of the same mileage equal?  What I mean is this:  I am currently running anywhere from 18 to 25 miles per week over the past couple of months.  Yet, there are some weeks when twenty miles might consist of four days of running (6, 5, 4, & 5), some weeks when twenty miles may be 3 days of running (10, 5, & 5), and still yet - some weeks when I might run 5 days (4, 5, 4, 3, & 4) for the same mileage.  Don't pay too much attention to the order, or the actual numbers, as I've simply picked random numbers to illustrate my question.  Regardless, these are probably pretty decent examples of what I'm asking.

Is it better to run less days with more mileage for each individual run, or to run more days with less mileage each run?

I'm guessing a couple of things from a very non-scientific perspective.  First, it seems logical that less mileage, with more days would equate to less injury than the opposite approach.  Second, I would think that more mileage with less days would be better if you were training for a longer event.  The question that I wonder though is, which gives you more bang for your buck?  Which one would you ultimately see better results with?  As it stands, I'm obviously doing a mix of everything, so it's convenient for me to think that a mixture of both is ideal, but I'm wondering if anyone has an answer based upon research or physiological testing.  Thoughts?  Answers?

Easy Runs vs. Days Off
I know that a lot of training plans will indicate an easy day, or a day off, as if they're interchangeable.  My question is this:  Is it actually better for your body if you run easy, or take the day off from running completely?  I've heard arguments for both sides.  The obvious ones are easy runs help stimulate blood flow and recovery to tired muscles, etc. for the former, and days off give your legs a break and more time for them to recover for the latter.  I'm not speaking about burnout or cardio - I really just want to know about leg muscle short term recovery and long term best interest (performance improvement).

The Dead Zones
What happens if you run in between the zones - as people like Jack Daniels suggests?  Seriously - logically, one would think that it would be better to run just a little bit faster if your body can handle it and you're not over training.  Let me back up. Beep, beep, beeeeeeeeep...  Ok.  Is it safe to say that if one could work out as hard as possible without over training or getting injured, it would breed the quickest and best results?

I know, I know.  Before all of you JD fans and similar types of philosophies get all bent out of shape, I know it.  I understand it.  We need the rest, because that's when our bodies get stronger.  So, I'm not arguing the merit of taking easy days or days off even.  What I'm wondering is, is it REALLY as bad as Jack would have you believe it is to run in (as he calls it) "no man's land."  Think about it.  If I ran 30 seconds a minute/mile faster than I'm supposed to for an easy run - is that really worse than taking that day off completely?  Some running has to be better than no running.  So someone help me understand just how bad those in-between paces really are?  Ok, okay.  I'll concede the easy runs.  I see it.  I get it.  We need to run slow enough frequently enough to make sure that we are rested and repairing ourselves.  Therefore, running too fast on an easy day doesn't allow us to recover properly, plus we're too tired (as a result) to maximize the workouts on hard days.  So let's not argue about the easy runs, I see the merit.  But what about the other zones...?  I mean, what if I ran a little bit slower than I'm supposed to for my intervals, or my tempo, or my threshold runs.  I get why you shouldn't run too fast for those types of training - extra effort/wear and tear, for no extra result - but what about the other side?  What if I'm not quite hitting my times for the "proper" interval pace?  I'm still doing my easy runs.  So any speed work (even if a little too slow) would be better than no speed work at all, correct?

VO2 MAX Equivalents
No way no how do my race results for different distances fall under the same VDOTs.  Do yours?  How is this possible?  They're not even close for me!  I think that they differ as much as 5...

Hill Strategies
I've read a lot that you should go up hills at the same effort that you were running at before you hit the hill.  I've tried this and I get passed by everybody else on the hills.  I've even consciously let the effort increase slightly on the uphill and still get passed.  I've read a lot that we should take shorter quicker strides going up - I do that too and I get passed.  I know that I'm supposed to keep good posture, lean forward slightly, use the arms more (front to back), look up/ahead and not down, but yet I still get passed.  HELP!  Are you a good hill runner?  Do you get passed, or do you pass people on the uphill.  I'd be happy just to stay even with everyone going up.  Especially since I have a tendency to pass a lot of people on the subsequent downhill.

Maybe I'll add more enigmas to this post at a later date...