Okay letsrun i’m doing this crap, predict my 600m-Mile based on this workout

600- 124

Mile- idk. Go out and see if you can run 3 flat for 1200 and then I'll give an answer

Time trialed 1000m around a week ago, did have a cold but I ran 2:31 with a pretty rough fall apart over the final 300m or so, so even healthy not sure a sub 3:00 1200 is in my ballpark quite yet

If your workouts are going well, then I would take your previous mile pr and say you are capable of shaving 2 seconds off that. Remember with the mile, 2 seconds isn't huge. With the 800, even 1 second is enormous.

Will more than happily take any kind of 1500m-mile PB this outdoor season, thanks!

I'm not sure what those numbers mean. Could you explain that? It reads like you did 2 minute reps in 5-ish minutes.

Is it that you did 2 minutes at those paces/mile?

Not saying you can’t run your goal times, but nothing about this work out is suggesting a 1:21 600 or a 1:53 800. Particularly the 1000m at 2:31. What are your current PRs?

How'd it feel? If it was under control and a ~7/10 effort, then I'd say your predictions are close. 2:31 solo, blowing up, and feeling under the weather could easily be 2:26/2:27 on a good day with competition, and that puts you in the 1:53 ballpark.

I don't understand it either.

2 minute reps

Done in 5:03, 5:00 etc?????

That's obviously the pace for the rep.

The OP is a known poster and generally produces intelligent, well thought out posts, but this is not his finest work. Next time just put the time that you ran for that distance.

The predictions you gave seem accurate but also conservative.

Anyone who is hitting those 200m splits in workouts has wheels.

You sound like one of the fastest regular reg. posters.

He's probably doing them on roads or something. I keep a lot of my workouts this exact way. Just going off time and my watch's pace, of course taking my watch's pace with a grain of salt. Easier than guessing the distance and I generally know when my watch is giving reasonable paces.

Some of us default to meters/kilometers, so maybe not as obvious at first glance. But in retrospect, it makes sense.

It wasn't obvious to me FartKing. I've not seen reps written like that and I also don't default to minutes per mile. So it's 2 minutes of running at 5:03 per mile. It's just a different/difficult way of viewing things if you want to try to be really accurate with predictions, as opposed to e.g. x metres run in x seconds - 400m reps run in 58, 56, 54, 55, 57, 59 with 3 min recovery etc.

24.9 is pretty quick for 200m in a workout. That's about the fastest I ever hit during a workout and I ran 1:51 on a relay that season. The 2:00 reps are a lot less impressive, not sure how hard they were supposed to be but I wouldn't expect you to break 9:00 for 3k off of that. Overall I'd give an estimate of approximately 1:20, 1:52, and 4:05 based off this workout. So pretty close to your predictions, but I'm a little more positive about your speed and a little more negative about your aerobic ability right now.

I default to miles but readily switch when people post their training in min/km. Even if this was run on the track, there's not a super great way of knowing your distance per rep. You can take note of your 200/400 splits and gauge your pace. But when the clock hits 2:00, you can just kind of guess where you are?

What do you want him to write?

637.4m @ 2:00
643.7m @ 2:00
650.2m @ 2:00
654.7m @ 2:00
665.9m @ 2:00
684.8 @ 2:00

There, much better? Can you more accurately predict his race times now? To me this tells me he ran 12 minutes of work at just under 5:00/mile pace with modest active recovery. That's all I need to know for that portion of the workout.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not :(

I'm not. He said he ran 2:00 reps and gave paces. You said posting distances and times would be better for this, so I converted his paces and times to distances and time. Is this a better way of viewing this information? Does it tell you more or make it easier to read?