first of all, triathlon training is not so novel that it can be considered some entirely different discipline, even if does require some changes from single sport training. so i'm not really interested in what a "then gen" did if all you're really saying is that they ignored existing "traditional" knowledge about training for swimming, biking and running. that would just make them stupid, or machochistic, or both. but ... i don't think they did, and in addition, when modern triathlon started, there was *plenty* of exercise physiology information available for the 3 disciplines. hell, long before it started, actually. that fact that we have more information now doesn't help a lot (c.f. "half of what we've taught you is wrong, but we don't know which half"). your claim seems to be "yeah, we're not much faster at the top end, but the athletes are cleaner and more people can get close to those times". i have no opinion on the "cleaner" part, but the more people part seems predicted by simple participation increases. so bluntly, i don't think you have any evidence whatsoever that exercise physiology is helping people train better, and certainly not at the podium-targetting end of the sport.
my "lot of words" could be summarized quickly as "your innovation is going to be someone else's dead weight of tradition, so how about a little more respect for the equally innovation-inspired people that came before you?"
my "lot of words" could be summarized quickly as "your innovation is going to be someone else's dead weight of tradition, so how about a little more respect for the equally innovation-inspired people that came before you?"