According to Vlad's PTJO paper, and many of the people he's read, there are some prescribed paces at which to run, say (I)ntervals, based upon your current fitness.
I found a nice table at:
http://www.coacheseducation.com/endur/jack-daniels...
that allows you to use a recent race-pace to predict VDOT, to then calculate (I) pace.
What's a little strange is that my 400m (I) prescribed (I) pace is notably slow, based on this table.
I ran one of my best 10k's ever last December, in a flat-adjusted pace of ~39 minutes. I would think I'm a significantly slower than that now, after many months off training due to a foot injury, and still enough of a foot injury that I just did my first track workout today. However, my orienteering results are getting decent again so...
So, let's say I'm fit to the point of a ~41 min. 10k today. That puts my VDOT at ~50 and up to 52 if you are generous.
That puts my 400m (I) pace at ~91-93, based on the table. However, I did 5x400 in an average of 86 today, and even that was limited a bit more by my foot and the weather than by my fitness.
Supposedly, if I run an average 86/lap on (I)ntervals, then I'm supposed to be able to go out and run a 5:16 mile, or 79/lap, for 4 laps in a row. This doesn't seem right.
I think part of the explanation lies in the fact that this table has one (I) pace, regardless of whether the distance for the (I)'s is 400m or 1200m. Does that make sense? Shouldn't I run 400m intervals a little faster than 1200m intervals?
So, is the table weird? Is my personal speed profile warped? If it's the latter, should I be focussing on the high bumps, such as longer (I)ntervals?
Optimizing my 3-4 hours a week of training...
- Wyatt