To hill with it

Hills are one of the more contentious training aspects vie come across. Should I run steep hills, long hills, should I run hills at all..? The different coaches I have run for each have a different philosophy. With my first cross country coach we ran hills weekly. Long, steep, thigh burning hills. The problem was that one these intervals it was difficult to maintain speed and power, which is ultimately the goal of hill work. Thus, the second approach. My track coach believes in periodic (once every two weeks or so at the beginning of the season) workouts on very steep hills with about 1 minute intervals. Though those allows for more speed, the question still remains as to whether this type of workout, with around 10 intervals, is enough. Personally, always inclined to take distance over intensity, I'm not convinced. So, finally, we come to my final coach's perspective. This Olympic trials runner believes in very short fifteen second hill sprints after a different workout. When I first experienced this in practice, I was immediately taken by it. Maybe it's because of how I run, but I'd rather do a longer workout with acme speed work to top it off than simply a hard speed day. Weird as I am, I feel like running for pure speed isn't the most worthwhile use of my time. Which is why today I ran my gills post-run. Yes, I admit it, I abridged my spring break workouts. I was supposed to take the second approach today but just couldn't bring myself to. Instead I ran my usual run, 6 miles, not at a slow pace, then proceeded to the hill a couple blocks down. I feel the need to mention that this hill is no gradual incline. It's about 100 meters, at least a 15 degree incline, and moderately public. People looked at me even more awkwardly than usual. All that aside, I am just curious about the responsibility an athlete has to their coach. The relationship between coach and team is complex and based on trust. If an athlete believes their training is ineffective, do they have the right to change it themselves? Do they have the responsibility? Or is it inherent in the law of competitive sports that the trainee listen to the trainer at all costs? I'm inclined to think it's a little of both. The player has to submit unquestioningly to the authority of the coach, but they do need to take control of their own training. They have the right and responsibility to do what they can to improve themselves because they know their blades and strengths and weaknesses more than anyone. And, if their authority is surpassed, what's a coach to do? With that, I'd like to open up the discussion. Where do you stand on coaching philosophy? Also, for anyone interested, I have a new favorite post-run snack: Greek yogurt with fruit of any kind and topped with whole grain cereal. This covers protein and carbs to replenish glycogen stores and repair muscles. It also tastes great!