Capacity Profiler

1.The Ratios

Ratio	Value	Balanced Band	Placement
1600/800	1.99	2.18-2.24	Below band
3200/1600	2.15	2.09-2.15	Within band (top edge)
5K/1600	3.49	3.45-3.54	Within band
5K/3200	1.63	1.60-1.66	Within band
800/400	Not computable	400m time not provided	—

2.Profile Reading

1600/800 at 1.99 sits below the 2.18-2.24 band — the 800m is relatively slow compared to the 1600m, which reads as endurance-dominant on this pairing: absolute speed is the limiter, not aerobic capacity.

Everything above the 1600m — 3200/1600, 5K/1600, 5K/3200 — falls inside balanced bands, with 3200/1600 sitting right at the top edge of its window (2.15, the ceiling of 2.09-2.15). That's not a break, but it's the one number closest to sliding into its own kind of imbalance if the trend continued upward at longer distances.

3.Athlete Type

Three of four computed ratios read balanced, and the one that breaks — 1600/800 — breaks toward endurance-dominant. That combination describes a resistant type: the engine holds shape all the way from 1600m to 5K, but the last gear down to 800m pace is underdeveloped relative to it. Racing implication: this is a pack runner, not a closer. Expect this athlete to sit in a race and grind rather than have a finishing kick — the 800m data point says the top-end speed to out-lean someone in the last 100m isn't there yet, even though the aerobic engine underneath is doing its job across three distances.

4.The Named Gap

The 800m relationship is the named gap — not because the other three ratios are perfect (3200/1600 sitting at the edge of its band deserves a watch), but because a single ratio breaking band while three stay balanced is the 10% that's actually costing this athlete races, not the 1% of squeezing 3200/1600 tighter. For a 1600m target athlete, the pace two rungs down the ladder (800m, Direct Speed territory) is underneath the goal event — a limiter there caps what the 1600m can become no matter how much aerobic work stacks on top. Address the speed gap before fine-tuning an aerobic ratio that's already inside its band.

5.What This Means for Training

• Direct Speed emphasis (800m-pace work): closes the named gap directly. Tradeoff — this athlete's aerobic ratios are balanced, not overbuilt, so time spent here is time not spent extending an already-working aerobic base; risk is diminishing returns if pushed alone without enough volume to hold the new speed under fatigue.
• Speed Support emphasis (400m-pace work, if 400m data existed): would sharpen the raw speed underneath the 800m gap even further down the ladder, but with no 400m time on file, this is a blind reach — flagging it as a training-role option, not a recommendation, since the diagnostic data doesn't reach that far down.
• Maintain current Endurance/Stamina work (3200-5K zone): tradeoff — holding here protects what's already balanced, but doing nothing new at this end wastes the fact that 3200/1600 is sitting at the top of its band, which is worth monitoring rather than ignoring as the season progresses.

None of these is a schedule — they're three levers, and which one gets the most weekly real estate is a coaching call based on time of season, the athlete's injury history with faster work, and how the 800m time was actually run (all-out effort vs. underprepared for that distance).

6.Ratio Targets

As pure illustration only — if the 1600m stayed at 5:35, a balanced 800m (using the 2.18-2.24 band) would land in roughly the 2:29-2:33 range, meaningfully faster than the current 2:48. Conversely, if the 800m of 2:48 is treated as fixed, a 1600m in band with it would sit closer to 6:07-6:06 — slower than the athlete's actual 5:35, reinforcing that the aerobic side is ahead of the speed side, not the other way around. These are chart illustrations, not targets — goal points are a coaching decision, not a chart read.