Are there any differences between training now vs then?

Training wasn't always what it is now.
This article is a little more in-depth on this topic
1910-30:
This time period consisted of slow running and walking as a suitable form of base training. Interval training (running multiple reps after the next) was kept to a minimum, maybe only short bursts of speed. A 9x individual Olympic medalist, Paavo Nurmi, a Finnish runner, even walked up to 4 hours to build strength. Most training regimens were kept at or below 100m for intervals.


1940-50:
Woldemar Gerschler was a major proponent of interval training and was one of the reasons for its prominence throughout this time period. At points, reps were brought to excess with 80x200m and other Olympic medalists such as Emil Zatopek (pictured above) swept the marathon, 10k, and 5k distances by doing countless 400m reps on the track.

1960-70:
New Zealand and Aussie runners brought the popularity of higher mileage training to the world stage. This training included steady running throughout the week to build an aerobic base with only few interval training sessions. Bill Bowerman brought the hard day- easy day balance to the scene at the track powerhouse of the University of Oregon that we are familiar with today.


1980-90:
The Brits, Steve Ovett, Steve Cram, and Seb Coe, (above) brought different training philosophies to the scene. Coe, a multi-event world record holder during this time period, focused on high intensity lower volume training. This differed from his fellow mates which focused on higher volume mixed with high intensity.



2000's:
Endurance became the gold standard for all training including high school and professional levels. Similar to the Kenyan methodology, aerobic development with higher mileage ranging from 80-100+ miles per week became the norm. In the 90's only 9 US high school runners broke 9min in the 2 mile, compared to 110 in the 2000's.
Matt Tagenkamp