for those that don't know, from what little I've read recently, Maffetone basically recommends in the below article doing most training under the lastate threshold; at or around ~75% -- the old "train slower to get faster" thing.

https://www.rrca.org/publicat/slowdown.html

Ironman Mark Allen said he did his running training at 155bpm (max 190) for a year, and after this peroid, his 155bpm running speed increased from an 8:15 mile to a 5:20 mile!!!

https://www.duathlon.com/articles/1460?

Does this translate to the bike or is it more of a running thing?

Both are saying the same thing. Begin by training a base aerobic of 75-80 mhr then after you plataue to go back to adding in sprints and intervals.

The context to both articles is combating the older idea that you had to train full out, every time, right from the start. No pain no gain, that was the old theory, so now they promote builing an aerobic base first. But they also acknowledge that once you stop increasing performance, the 'no pain no gain' parts have to be added back in.

Thats the same as what all the recomendations in this forum have been saying since I started reading it. The only discrepency between everyone is how to determine max hr. Both of the printed articles dont use a resting hr in their equation, so are not as accurate as some in my opinion.

I would venture a 'yes'. Basic exercise physiology does not differ, just muscle groups.

Here is the best ever article I read about understanding intervals:
https://home.hia.no/~stephens/interval.htm

Yeah but always doing LSD sucks back your time like crazy.

Short slow distance does nothing really... (other than recovery). So if I can only fit in one long ride on the weekend, my 2-3 other workouts each week have to be at or above LT. However, it can be hard to recover enough when doing a lot of speedwork.

This whole idea of fat only fuelling is interesting. It could have some real merit in the idea of increasing genomic expression of fat metabolizing enzymes etc. The idea comes up in many forms from: low carb dieting (for an induction period ONLY); no breakfast morning workouts (overnight fasting); or “bonk training” with very long slow carbless riding. Glycogen sparring supplements come to mind as well.

Unfortunately, almost all the studies I have found are too short term to allow for any adaptations to take place. Cyclists Training bible author, Joe Friel believes it takes about a week to adapt to a new diet and somewhat is a follower of the fat fuel idea in his Paleo diet for athletes book.

All of these systems really push fat metabolism processes by similar means… by not allowing the carb systems to function. Unfortunately, they also share a downside; increased chance of getting sick from post exercise immunosuppression. With hard training staying healthy is the most important thing. Eating before, during, and after training keeps you healthy. So the well-fed LSD once a week is all I got, and we know it works.

Go long…

I dont think either of the posted articles are doing lsd type rides, in a zone equal to recovery rides.

Zone 1 65% of MHR (recovery rides)
Zone 2 65-72% of MHR (endurance events)
Zone 3 73-80% of MHR (high level aerobic activity)
Zone 4 84-90% of MHR (lactate threshold(LT,AT); time trialing)
Zone 5 91-100% of MHR (sprints and anaerobic training

Thats usually what i see listed as 'zones'.
Recovery is at 65%, the lsd type rides you refer to are slightly above recovery in the 70% range.
Both the above articles appear to me to be promoting the 73-80% range, or high aerobic.

Both articles seem to be promoting long endurance training just below lactate threshold. As opposed to going full out and blowing up. Didnt see any reference to going 'slow'. But i do agree that the LSD type rides suck time away from you

THe issue I see is that one should use LT to create the zones, rather than MHR; everyone's LT occurs at a different percentage of MHR.

this certainly hasnt been my experience... I "slow" train 60 - 90 minutes six days a week and eat very low carbs (<50g per day). I havent been sick in over a year,

since I started this thread nearly 2 months ago, I've Googled more, and the consensus seems to be that this training is more suited to running because running doesn't require anywhere near the same wattage from the legs as cycling does. However, tempo training can obviously be part of a training routine