I have a general comment:
Ok, let's suppose the "new" #'s presented here are true: the aerobic contribution to energy is greater than many thought for even the shorter events, like 400/800/1500. Ok, great. So the lots of volume of aerobic running have something more to cheer about....fantastic (not being sarcastic, just saying: "great!").
But I have a question: why does aerobic training have to be "slow" (relatively speaking) ?????
Igloi's runners did TONS of fast running, and much of it was aerobic (short sprints, with short recoveries). And Marius Bakken does TONS of "fast" running, anb most of it is aerobic (but his version is longer repeats, with a little more recovery, right at the LASS, AT.).
In short, you can train "fast" regularly and still train aerobic and not be in "lactic-acid-land" regularly. You might just have to , GASP, take more breaks than you are used to. Most people consider stopping and walking to recover during a workout, even in a very intense speed workout, to be blasphemous. But Bob Schul, gold medalist, walked his breaks most of the time.....and Marius Bakken stops for 2 minutes to take Lactate measurements during his hard repeats. In short: run fast, take breaks before you land yourself above your Anerobic Threshold, recover a bit....AND DO IT AGAIN. That way you'll get the BEST OF BOTH WORLDS: fast running AND aerobic training. This can be done on a fairly regular basis, and is not more taxing than long, steady[with no breaks] slower runs.