Critical Power vs FTP and CP60

My understanding was that CP was the power you could sustain for a 'very long time'.

That 'very long' is not clear.

CP60 is more precise in that it is the power you can sustain for 60min, which I believe is also the definition of FTP.

So I think FTP and CP60 are interchangeable

This was my understanding

What I like to do is have Golden Cheetah plot my CP curve and then I test points along that curve during rides. The more points you have tested along the curve, the more precise it should be.

Since all you have is an estimate anyway, does it really matter?  Can you hit your target power in your workouts using the CP60 value?  If so, use that.

PM me your email and I can send you a reasonably readable review by the scientific Godfather of Critical Power, Andrew Jones. The term has been somewhat bastardized in sports writing.

Dr Phil Skiba also has a great book TRAINING WITH POWER that covers the topic well from a Triathlon perspective.

Which is higher?

I'm guessing Critical power.

Did you go all out to find C60? Most folks aren't motivated to do 60 minutes all out so they are panting and spent on side of road at end of 60'.

Which have you been using and with those zones have you been able to hit your intervals in training?

I use 20 minute power and 3 minute power tests to find this value.  I do not do the 5 minute all out burn out before doing the 20 minute power test.  CP60 is higher.  CP is 91% of 20 minute power.  CP60 is 95% of 20 minute power.

Yes, I went all out in the 20 minute test.  

I have been using CP which is lower for all my intervals since getting my power meter.  I always hit my power number in my intervals.  95-100% on 2x20, 110% on 5x5, and 105% on 1x20.

CP is slightly lower than CP60 which I'm fine with.  Just wondering which is correct and which others use.

I own and have read Training and Racing with a Power Meter.  In the 7 sins, it said that CP is a good way to estimate FTP but I don't recall it distinguishing between CP and CP60.   Just wondering which is correct.

I highly recommend Dr. Skiba's books.  Also I suggest reading this as a preview to his books and to hopefully help clarify all the terms for you: ?http://physfarm.com/new/?page_id=511

I would try to sum it up, but his article is really just too good for me to even try.

I was actually looking for this book on Amazon after I read Training and Racing with a Power Meter.  I remembered it being mentioned in some threads but couldn't find it using searches.  I couldn't find it on Amazon and I gave up on it.  So, thanks to you and Maverick.

CP == FTP

There is no such thing as CP60. Erase it from your mind.

Oh, and read the Skiba books ... and the Coggan books.

I am not sure I am reading the articles the same way you are. Both Coggan and Skiba say that CP is close to FTP, they correlate, but they are not the same.

In Skiba's words "FTP s probably pretty close to, but just slightly lower than CP in a well trained athlete"   from http://physfarm.com/new/?page_id=511

A pro over on ST made the exact same claim.

CP is the slope of of a line if you plot work in joules against time.

While CP3, CP30 are bastardizations of the CP acronym, they do conviently label data points along that plotted line line.

The point at 60 minutes (CP60) is the power you should be able to sustain for 60minutes, which is Coggan's preferred method of measuring FTP.

This is piddly detail since CP and FTP should be close. What the OP needs most is the power to be used for setting his training zones. Personally I would use the 17w higher value (CP60) and be in the 95% to 100% range. If he struggles to hit his targets on the 2x20', he is probably over estimating it.

I would really like to hear where the above is flawed.

The double equals sign is me trying to say 'more or less equals'. I'm not sure how to make the curvy equals sign here. I could extend it futher and say tt also is more or less equal to maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) and its pretty much the same thing as power at lactate threshold (LT). My bad if I made it seem like they are exactly the same thing, b/c they are not.

What is flawed in the above is the usage of CP for anything other than the scientifically accepted term created a half century ago. Using 'CP' followed by a numbering system to mean the power you could sustain for that amount of time pollutes the very definition of the term. In the OP case b/c he's chosen "60", the result happens to correlate with the real definition of Critical Power; however they are not the same thing. For instance, when you say "CP3" you are asserting that there is such a thing as critical power at 3 minutes when there is in fact no such animal. What you are measuring is the work capacity at three 3 minutes. You are correct that you use these types of measurements to plot the line and determine the slope and calculate your real Critical Power. Call CP60 the "one hour most power" if you want and I won't complain.