Effects of taking a year off from running and other physical activities

62

2:28

5:47

mile - 5:12

800- 2:22

400-56.2

Was this all out in one session??

Me 1 wrote:

mile - 5:12

800- 2:22

400-56.2

Was this all out in one session??

I did the 800 first last Monday, followed by the 400 an hour later. The mile was done on Friday.

Also, all runs were done in trainers without any competition. It was an all-weather track, and winds were negligible.

Well done. You're one of the few on LR that know how to properly hyphenate a unit modifier.

wow, you were a lot better at the 400 and 800 than anything longer.

imbalance wrote:

wow, you were a lot better at the 400 and 800 than anything longer.

It's probably because my mileage was too low for the longer distances. I think I might have been able to run a sub 4 1500 with high mileage, but I got injured before I had the chance to find out.

You are a f***wit

mile - 4:51

800- 2:12

400-56.2

Mr Mountain wrote:

62

2:28

5:47

I think I'll have to agree with Mr. Mountain on this one. I had to take a lot of time off this year, but not an entire year, and I had a hell of a time getting back into running shape. I would say these times are accurate.

400: 66

800: 2:22

Mile: 5:38

kudos wrote:

Well done. You're one of the few on LR that know how to properly hyphenate a unit modifier.

Great, but what good does that do him when he cannot even choose the correct verb tense?

Do these people just sleep through school?

"I haven't ran..."

Are you kidding me?

I'm guessing 58, 2:22, 5:44 if you're young

And 64, 2:38, and DNF if you're over 40

52.5/ 2.06/4.53

You should't have lost much 400 speed especially since you had decent 800 strength but you ran an hour after the 800 without any conditioning.

For the 800 you were fresh and pumped. Maybe went out in 58 and struggled to hold on to close in 64.

The mile is tougher becuase you didn't have much distance before and didn't have any leading in but the early time trials was a bit of a tune up.

400m - 54.2

800m - 2:02.5

mile - 4:55.0

Or maybe a month of running would be needed to hit those times.

Can't wait to see if I have bragging rights.

A year is a long time, if in fact you really did little to no aerobic exercise. You must have gained some weight too. I'm an old guy (in my 40s now), but I know a few years ago i had to take 3 months off completely because of injury. Before the injury I was in great shape and running sub 17 for 5k (I know I'm not very good). Then, after 3 months of running following my return to running (after the 3 months off) I ran my first 5K in barely under 19 minutes and it really hurt. So, given that experience, I would be surprised if you broke 6 minutes for a mile. The shorter stuff might be a little closer. My predictions:

400: 59.2

800: 2:18

mile: 5:51

Just curious, I can run a 400 in 62 without training. Do I have the potential to run 50?

400 - 56.5

800 - 2:14

Mile - 5:27

mile - 6:05

800- 2:37

400-64.8

The Bare Facts wrote:

A year is a long time, if in fact you really did little to no aerobic exercise. You must have gained some weight too.

I did gain weight, but it wasn't that much (only 8-10 lbs).