Originally Posted by
rubiksoval
I'll also add that if your goal is improving FTP on 6-8 hours a week, then polarized is definitely not the plan for that, as so much specific FPT training involves training in that dreaded zone 2 of the polarized 3 zone plan.
You can conceivably do 3-5 days a week of 20-60 minutes of tempo/sweetspot/threshold (depending on your experience and recovery) which is precisely the type of training that will most improve your FTP in a shorter time frame with shorter training durations.
Originally Posted by
rubiksoval
As I mentioned, IF the training stimulus is sufficient, then adaptation and improvement can still happen. So it's not so much a question of whether PT can be effective (again, nearly anything can be effective), it's a question of whether it is more effective than another methodology.
Are you familiar with the training concept of specificity? This is why I said hardly anyone does polarized training, because it lacks that specificity that so many are seeking to improve upon. To suggest that someone train for a 20-75 minute hill climb or time trial or similar without doing any efforts in the intensity range they're expecting to do is a really odd methodology and not one that is realistically done by anyone seeking to maximize performance.
Yes, I am familiar with specificity, and again, that's what the idea of PT purports to refute, e.g. one does not need to do a lot of threshhold work in order to increase threshold most effectively, as paradoxical as that may seem. As far as hill climbing and which zone that falls into, I guess it depends on the hill. You seem to be simply saying "No, PT does not work" and "riders don't implement PT because it doesn't work." Those are two statements. Can you direct me to a reputable source that backs those statements? A couple of sources I found state that the reason some don't do PT is that it isn't fun...no more club tempo rides.