i've always been a skeptic of running slower = better. the reasons provided to encourage slower running is almost always stuff about heart rates, combining the word "aerobic" with other words, and occasionally stuff about capillaries and mitochondria. maybe that's true, but i look at that as junk science and throw it out the window.
i am of course not a skeptic of running MORE is better. why can't the explanation for slower running be as simple as "running slower makes you run for a longer time"?
Take two people with similar levels of talent. They run 6 miles every day. 42 miles a week.
7:30 pace - 45 minutes a day, 5 hours and 15 mins a week
9:00 pace - 54 minutes a day, 6 hours and 18 mins a week
i can easily see the 9:00 guy racing faster than the 7:30 guy, because he runs an hour longer a week. The benefit of running for that extra hour outweighs the the benefit of running faster. Simple to digest.
now take a counter scenario, where they run 45 minutes a day regardless of distance. Now the 7:30/mi guy still runs 6 miles a day, but the 9:00 guy is down to 5 miles. I would have to see the 9:00 guy race faster than the 7:30 guy to believe anything about optimal paces and mitochondria.