I have been doing power training based off of FTP since 2008. In a matter of a few rides with power, the limitations of HR and RPE training became patently clear and HR took it rightful place as a tertiary measurement that may be useful in some training instances but honestly, I cannot think of any. I am not going to repeat what rubiksoval already said.
HR training was kickstarted by Conconi and his test to determine lactate threshold. There are better methods for LT testing in the field than using HR. However, my wife was tested at UCLA as part of a clinical trial she volunteered to do for masters athletes. They would not take her into the study because she does not produce any lactate.
I have found the FTP / TSS construct to be adequate for my needs and testing to determine FTP not a problem per se. Although, I do think it takes some practice testing to get a good result.
If the FTP construct has a hole in it, it is that it does not take into account all riding positions, on all terrain and across all cycling modalities. Hence one can have a different FTP climbing versus flat to rolling terrain, the drops versus the hoods, the TT position versus the road bike and the velodrome versus the road and finally the trainer versus the road. I have found that they can equilibrate with enough time in the saddle.
The classic discussion at a training camp will be about my FTP is different when I time trial versus on my road bike
So one has to pick his / her testing protocol. I generate the highest FTP on an ideal climb riding on the hoods. My new Garmin 820 is spitting out FTP, LT and VO2 numbers for me at the end of each ride assuming there is a change. They are not too bad of a calculation.
I have enough experience to know where my FTP is by just riding and looking at data without a test but if one uses a coach that uses power for training, one is going to do a test.
As far as self regulating power workouts based upon how one feels, I do not see anything wrong doing that. One can guess an FTP and go out for 4 x 10' w 5' RBI and see how it goes and adjust as necessary during the workout. If there is a new number, take it into the next workout session.
For me, building FTP is about duration at, above or near FTP which is at least 10 minutes in duration. Shorter duration workouts just do not generate the adaptation for me. And I need multiple intervals. Two intervals is not enough. If I go shorter than 10 minutes then I need 110% FTP and multiple intervals. So OP, your stuff is too easy and short for me.
Unlike my wife, I am mortal and generate lactate such that I do over under work such as 20 minutes of 3'@110% and 2'@90%. At 110%, I generate lactate plus other waste products that I have to get rid of when I continue at 90%. Over the 20', this trains my aerobic system to deal with the waste products and builds FTP plus the physiology is typical of group ride dynamics. Doing constant power efforts do not offer that capability and therefore are generally inferior for training for mass start races or group rides.
I do other mixed system efforts since they are real world cycling. I do low cadence high torque efforts at 55 rpm to build tolerance to high torque in my legs and build strength on the bike. In general, low cadence efforts generate a lower HR for the same power such that HR is not an accurate representation of effort.
I ride my harder efforts in the drops or on my TT bike. My goal is to generate FTP in the fastest riding positions.
The other aspect of my training is I start with a goal and the training supports the goal. If I am going to do a 20k ITT, I need FTP on my TT bike not on the hoods of my road bike. If I am doing a pursuit at the track, I need 3' power with a standing start. So I need mixed system capability. A higher FTP is a benefit in pursuit since one generally gets a multiple of FTP for 3 minute power.
OP, you are not wrong but have an incomplete picture and understanding of training. My biggest criticism is that you do not start with a goal and in a positive way state how your ideas add more value. Everything you do starts with a negative premise that assumes the sky is falling. Even in this thread, you propose that FTP is inadequate and athletes will fail due to FTP testing because they cannot do the work. I do fine and know a lot of athletes that have done very well with FTP training. And once again, there is no data, personal information or back up to support your premise. And please spare us the same internet links that you used before.
Different training protocols and programs can support the same goal and provide different athletes an advantage.
You remind me of Professor Herald Hill. Sorry. Oh we have trouble right here in BF training land.
