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

58.2

2:19.3

5:18.7

800 2:18

400 59

Mile 5:30

58

2.09

4.57

It wouldn't surprise me if you rolled some decent times:

54.5

2:02

4:41

58.5

2:18

5:14

johnnywaterski wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

400m: 1:05

800m: 2:20

mile: 5:00

Muscle memory remembers a lot...

Alan

You're predicting him to run 15 seconds slower than his 400m pr and only 24 seconds slower than his mile pr. Idiot.

Hold up there name-caller, I agree with Runningart2004 for that particular reason. I have found that off of an extended break, it's much easier to run a "decent" mile than a "decent" 400. The 400 takes a lot of sharpening to run fast ... it's a lot easier to use muscle memory to cruise through four laps in 70-75.

With that said, I'll say -

400m 58

800m 2:14 (63, 71)

mile 5:00

Karl Hungus wrote:

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

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

If you're interested in averaging the guesses on this thread, use Karl's first guess. I'm 22 now.

Anyone claiming the guy broke 5 in the mile off of absolutely no running is out of their everloving minds. It really begs the question: just how running ignorant are most of the posters on this site?

Under the given conditions, I'll guess:

5:36

2:33

68

Yes, I used the "younger version" for Karl's guesses.

Here are the sums for 35 guesses so far (just before "used to be injured's comment):

Dist. Seconds StDev

400 2033.20 3.06

800 4758.20 8.26

Mile 11203.70 19.71

The data are "non-homogenized" and "non value-added" but are as accurate as far as I can tell. You can easily calculate the averages yourself and/or add to these sums from here on out.

35 observations as of "used to be injured" at 6:31, but not including Francis L.

I think he can break 5. I took a 16 months off, absolutely no running. Then trained for 6 weeks and worked all the up to 25 mpw and then ran 72:53 for a half marathon. My pr's had been 15:08 5k and 4:02 1500. I think he should only be 10-12 seconds slower in the 800 and 4:56-59 in the mile. The 800 and mile aren't very long, so there's not a whole lot of room to lose large chunks of time. The single most important factor might be how many years of running he put in before taking time off. One or two years and he might not break 5. Five plus years and he's got it no problem.

Francis- Don't be jealous just because his pr's are better then yours.

the dude1 wrote:

I think he should only be 10-12 seconds slower in the 800 and 4:56-59 in the mile. The 800 and mile aren't very long, so there's not a whole lot of room to lose large chunks of time. The single most important factor might be how many years of running he put in before taking time off. One or two years and he might not break 5. Five plus years and he's got it no problem.

I've been training seriously for three years. Before that, I trained like a recreational runner (about 15MPW with little speedwork) for five years.

Anyway, what do you think I ran for the 400?

800- 2:07.2

400-57.8

Mile- 5:13.3

I think your 400 would have been 55-low if it weren't an hour after your 800. Also, I think if you hadn't run the 800 and 400 a few days before the mile you would probably have run about 5:28 in the mile; the faster running four days before the mile probably made its moderately fast pace feel easier.

Just for reference, I didn't run at all for 2.5 years after an accident. I crosstrained about 10 hours a week and ran 7 minute pace for 5k. Before the accident, I ran 5:30 pace.

In high school a teammate on my xc team ran about 17 minute 5k. He played baseball in the spring so he wasn't doing any formal training but still just broke 5 minutes for the mile at the open race at our invitational.

the dude1 wrote:

I think he can break 5. I took a 16 months off, absolutely no running. Then trained for 6 weeks and worked all the up to 25 mpw and then ran 72:53 for a half marathon. My pr's had been 15:08 5k and 4:02 1500. I think he should only be 10-12 seconds slower in the 800 and 4:56-59 in the mile. The 800 and mile aren't very long, so there's not a whole lot of room to lose large chunks of time. The single most important factor might be how many years of running he put in before taking time off. One or two years and he might not break 5. Five plus years and he's got it no problem.

Francis- Don't be jealous just because his pr's are better then yours.

To get Francis's back- dude1 I think you might be mentally handicapable. What don't you understand about the OP not running (indeed, only walking) in over a year. This is not comparable to your having trained for 6 weeks.

Former sub 29:30, sub 14:20, sub 2:20 guy here. Still running a moderately paced 40-50 miles per week. Ran a 1:13 something half marathon a few months ago. Early 30s. And I would have to push pretty hard at this point to run one mile on a track in under 5:00. Not saying all out 100% to break it, but still push surprisingly hard. The OP obviously had decent speed when he was training, but 1:54 ain't exactly Bekele type talent. I'm going to have to agree with those posters expressing skepticism about the guy's ability to break 5 minutes (or some anywhere "close" really). Natural speed would be much more likely to get him closer to 60 seconds for 400, but not if he had just run an 800 beforehand. I'm thinking he hit 2:33 and then ran a stiff legged 68.

Just Run Baby.

I'm too lazy to read every comment, but did you run this by yourself? You don't need to take a year off of training to lose mental discipline. If you take 4 months off from racing you'll lose some time just because you're not used to what real racing pain is supposed to feel like.

Even if you went on the track by yourself at your peak condition, you're not running 50-1:54-4:36...more like 51, 1:58, 4:45, especially since your mile time indicates a lack of fitness given your 800 time.

400: 58.5

800: 2:08

Mile: 5:23

By the way, I have barely been doing anything for 2.5 years and my achilles tendonapthy hasn't gone away. Good luck with that.

400: 62

800: 2:20

Mile: 4:59