Triatheletes don't run enough

And they can't spell either ....

I'd like to know where he is getting his opinion from other than personal experience.  Doesn't really sound like it is based on anything.

Adding more 3 - 4 mile runs??  Sure, of course that is always a good idea as long as the runs have a purpose.

As Daniels says, make sure every run has a purpose, and that you know what that purpose is before you go out and do it.

Last winter when I trained for my sub-3 attempt I was putting in 8 - 10 hour weeks of just running with sometimes 8 runs a week.  I did not end up injured at all with the high volume and frequency.

But .... I think that is what led to nagging problems for the rest of the year.  I'm only now getting back to the point where something isn't annoying me after a run (stuff never bothers me during, which is an indicator that it is okay to run).

Now I'm tossing around the idea of trying to go for that sub-3 again (yeah yeah yeah ..... said I'd never "race" another marathon ... sue me) but that stuff sticks in the back of my mind.  I don't know if I want to put myself through the 60 - 80 mile weeks again in the dead of winter.

There is still a lot of disagreement about how much is enough running. I know competitive runners who run 11 times a week, and I know competitive runners (16:00 5Ks as a 15-year-old) on three runs a week.

The key is obviously to do what works for you. Again, with the injury thing, it's based on the person. I was injured twice on five runs a week, and injured twice (stress fractures and muscle tears) on three to four runs a week.

I'm currently following a training plan for a Spring Marathon.  It "only" has 4 runs per week, with a "cross" on a 5th day.  I am certain that at my current weight of 220 lbs, my knees/ankles/back/etc. would fall apart with any additional runs.

I don't beleive that I could get faster without at least two recovery days per week.   Instead of getting in 1 long, one medium and two short runs EVERY WEEK, I'd probably do one week of 6 runs, followed by two weeks of recovery.  (I think that I'd be better off doing doubles 3 days a week instead of running 6 days a week.  This was what we did in High School X-C). 

Just this novice's opinion, as well as that of several marathon training plans that I have read.

Oh, and there is the whole matter of keeping a job, family and friends!

I also don't know what the "golden" answer is, but there are valid arguments for both sides.

For the truly injury prone, tris are great since you can run "less" and try and partially compensate by biking/swimming. Of course, you will not be as fast on the run versus a 100% run trained individual, but if you really are injury prone (in my opinion, way too many people erroneously put themselves in this category after not doing structured buildup) this will probably yield best results.

However, I do think that running more volume with less intensity overall is generally better for most nonelite runners trying to improve performance, and that includes staying free of injury. In my 15 years of running, I have seen countless runners, particularly marathoners, try and cut back to 3-day per week programs or x-training programs, and then find how hard it is to run long runs of 15-22 miles for training. This is expected, if you're only running 30 miles per week - a 20 miler would be 2/3 of your weekly mileage, which is a certain prescription for overuse injury. Another common theme I have seen are people training for 5ks & 10ks, who dive into fast interval training with a weak mileage base (<20mpw) and then suffer shin splints, knee pains, etc.

Contrast this with a slow, methodical buildup to 60-70mpw; at this point, long runs are routine and safe, and your joints & bones & muscles are well adapted to take on the impact of intervals. 

In my opinion, in general, for peak running performance, a methodical buildup to more miles, and yes, more runs per week, is the safest and most effective way to consistently improve the run. The trouble becomes finding the time to fit in the bike & swim training as well - can't neglect those and expect to become a good triathlete.

Runners don't bike or swim enough. 

Seriously, if your sport is triathlon, you need to do all three in a balanced fashion.  Unless your plan is to make every day a brick, a triathlete will always do less of a single sport than a single sport person.  Triathlon magazine had an article years ago where they sponsered a friendly bike race between a group of triathletes and a group of cyclists.  The cyclists won, but admitted that there was no way they could go for a run right away. 

I don't think that running more makes you less prone to injury.  If you drive more, at a certain point, you are more likely to have an accident than less likely, since you have more miles and time to screw up. 

I know most of you people don't run enough.

Hence the reason my advice is always "Run more".

I must be honest and disclose something that I just noticed about the training plan that I am following.

Actually, if you are trying to go for a 2:30 Marathon, my program puts you at 6 days a week.

In my case, where it is my first (and last) Marathon, and finishing is the primary goal, with a 4:30 as a time goal, I am hoping that 4 runs/Week will be sufficient.  Equally important is getting under 200 lbs.  I can only imagine how much easier (&faster) running will be with 10% less weight.

2:30 marathon?  What plan is this?

My last marathon I was doing 6-7 days a week, and running 10-12 times per week, and still didn't go sub 3.