I feel people should realise that Maffetone's ideas about training are hardly revolutionary. If you look at cycling you will find a long tradition of building an aerobic base over winter by lots of long, steady, distance (LSD) training. Moreover, although, with the development of sports science through the eighties and nineties, cyclists veered towards more emphasis on high intensity intervals, they are now returning to LSD work. Why? Because, after a while, improvements in speed and strength depend on improving the aerobic foundation and muscular efficiency. It's actually quite possible that high-intensity training based sports science philosophies actually miss key understanding of the human body, so promoting incorrect models. Certainly top cyclists can operate well beyond the bounds of some predicted capabilities, drugs or no drugs.
I think the relative surprise of triathletes (compared to the traditional cyclist) at being told to 'go slow' results from both socio-economic and sporting cultural factors. Historically, cycling in Europe is a 'blue collar' sport, with people starting young, so having lots of time and probably treating long group rides as social activities. Moreover, they may well be hoping to make a career out of the sport and so will be spending every hour possible riding a bike. Combine this with cycling being a sport which, unlike running, can easily be done in extreme volume without injury, and an emphasis on LSD training results. In fact, in the last decade, when traditional cyclists have 'discovered' specific intensity training, improvements can be dramatic because they already have a fantastic base to build on. The subsequent mistake many then make is not to realise that their new improvements depended on having the base.
In contrast, triathlon tends to be taken up by professionals in their late twenties and early thirties, who may well have families. They have little time, and are used to pushing themselves in their careers. They believe they need to maximise what little training time they have, and so will go out and work as hard as possible. With their educated backgrounds they find the idea of control - monitoring heart rates and power outputs, and training at specific levels for set time periods - deeply appealing. Combine this factor with the strong influence of swimmers on the sport, who have probably done that sport during teenage years within a tradition of high intensity and intervals, and you have a generation who do not understand LSD work. In fact, they can't believe that going easy will make them faster. Moreover, early on, their high intensity workouts will produce big gains in performance - but then so would any training, and they will (relatively) soon hit a plateau. Ultimately, to reach their potential, LSD work will be needed, even for short distance events and let-alone Ironman. Now, as for the ratio of LSD:intensity that should be done, that really is an individual matter and something for the individual to discover!
Now considering Maffetone's other beliefs... I don't know whether or not he is right about weight training. Moreover, the benefit of this for triathlon is a subject one can argue about till the cows come home - and people regularly do! On the other hand, I believe his ideas about diet are far more interesting and radical. They also appear to be the most misconstrued of his philosophies. Firstly, Maffetone's dietry ideas are just as much about health as sporting performance - something easily forgotten. And I, for one, am starting to wonder just how healthy this sugar-dependent generation really is? Is sugar in fact killing us all? Secondly, one cannot expect immediate performance benefits on his diet. Physiological adaptations must take place, and this will need time. In contrast, pumping oneself full of glycogen will give oneself energy for sport, irrespective of one's efficiency in fat burning - and hence will produce good results in sports science testing.
Here, I will also comment on the use of sports drinks and energy bars. Again, I will look at cycling. One of my friends used to race seriously, at national (and higher) standard. He's now turned 50. On a hard, four hour ride, he can still give most of us a kicking. On one 250 ml bottle of water. No food. How? He's spent most of his life training himself to ride without food and water, because that's how they used to do it. For instance, back in the eighties, he rode a 100 mile timetrial in 3hr 48m, carrying all his own water (I think two bottles), no energy drink/bars, with no tri-bars or aero wheels. This was possible because of his years of adaptation. Now, I personally do not condone training oneself to survive without drinking water, but with the combined forces of sports science and energy drink/food marketing, we are being led to believe that my friend has impossible capabilities, and that we must rely on a permanent supply of carbs. In fact, I was interested to read of (I think) Chris McCormack's success in Ironman that was enabled by training himself to need less food on rides. My friend has been telling everyone to do this for years...
Returning to the Maffetone diet. What are my experiences like? Typically for a modern Westerner who's interested in sport and health, I spent many years as the ultimate carbohydrate-kid. However, my endurance was always substandard for my fitness level, I'd regularly go through energy lows if I didn't get my carb-fix, and I really did have problems losing those last few pounds. Recently, I started increasing the quantity of (good) fats, in line with Maffetone, and I have been able to improve all these factors. Moreover, I have found I can eradicate my regular bouts of gastro-intestinal distress, and my skin isn't dry anymore. I'm not sure how my ultimate speed compares, (something that shouldn't bother Ironman triathletes anyway - which, I hasten to add, I am not (yet) one of), but then speed isn't my priority at the moment anyway. Having moved from England to Australia, I'm more interested in slowly converting my cycling fitness to triathlon, and learning how to surf!
duncan