young master wrote:
Your 400/800 is fast, much better than your longer events.
40-50 mpw is reasonable for a 16:xx 5k runner.
1000s look good, although for those you should be able to hit consistently 5k pace with 1:00-1:30 rest. Do similar sets of 800s, 1200s and 1600s.
Finally, TEMPO. Every week. For you, 20-30 minutes at 5:45-5:50/mile for you should be good.
I am not sure that the conclusion about shorter distances being (much)
faster relative to longer distances. To a first approximation, Pace is a linear function of Log(Distance). Using this function, the longer distances are below the regression line, not above it.
However, a simpler way to look at it is to take the ratio of his time to the WR mark. Assuming that your marks of, say 53 really mean 53.5 here is what I get. By this measure, Young Master is correct in his conclusion.
Dist Sec WR Sec Ratio
400 53.5 43.18 1.239
800 122.5 100.9 1.214
1000 162.5 132.5 1.226
1600 275.5 221.3 1.245
3200 606.5 479 1.266
3200 600 479 1.253
For a slight adjustment we might assume that the indoor track is slow by about 1% (e.g., the corrections for the Flat 200 tracks relative to OT). Thus, the last ratio gets replaced by the alternative version of 10:00 (600 seconds) and yields a ratio of 1.253. This would seem to imply that you are a couple of percent slower at the longer distances but not too much.
Looked at another way, your marks are like a good college woman runner and look to be a little faster at the 800 end as 2:02 is less common 4:36+/10:03 mile/2-mile.