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

Shith wrote:

I'm too lazy to read every comment, but did you run this by yourself?

Yes. Like I said earlier, those runs were basically solo time trials.

On another note, I did run the full 1609 meters. I'll just add two seconds to those of you who listed 1600 predictions. It's more for stats purposes, and it doesn't imply that those predictions were close enough to my actual time to make it a big issue.

alright already I'm ready for the results eh'.

400: 67

800: 2:35

Mile: 5.45

My Internet connection is pretty unreliable now, so I figured I might as well post the results now in case I'm unable to post it later tonight.

With that said, here were my times:

400: 56.8

Closest poster was crappal tunnel, who guessed a 56 high. The letsrun average was also very close on this one. I did a lot better than I expected, especially considering my bad experience with the 800 (see below). Like another poster said, it did look like my legs had some memory of running fast.

BTW, the 800 run an hour earlier didn't affect me that much. It did take me longer than usual to recover from an all-out 800, but I felt like I was ready to run fast an hour later. Even if I ran the 400 first, I doubt that I would have gotten under 56.

800: 2:28

Closest poster was Mr Mountain, who replied first and got it exactly right. Wow! For that run, my splits were 1:08 and 1:20. I picked up the pace a bit on the second curve since felt like I felt like I started out too slowly, but I later regretted that. The last 250 meters were brutal, and the only thing stopping me from a DNF was remembering that the last part of an 800 was not supposed to feel pleasant.

mile: 5:42

Closest poster was Karl Hungus, who guessed a 5:44. I was quite surprised at the discussion on whether I was able to break 5. That time was only 24 seconds slower than my PR, and I had to keep up my (post-injury) 800 time for another 2 laps to get that. My splits were 2:40 and 3:02. The first one and a half laps felt quite comfortable, but I simply ran out of gas on the lap after that.

That 800 sounds brutal...

what did you do for a year?!

ill take dickhead of the year award for my reply above! just read ur first post. my bad

There was no discussion on you breaking 5, dude. As I said- anyone who thought so just shows there insane lack of running knowledge...

Dammit. "their"

I think it was the injury that hurt you the must because you are probaly more talented than I am Because I have only ran a year that is why I don't I run 5:20s in no kind of shape I mean pre running when I use to sit on the couch all day and run the mile in gym class.So again I think it was the injury that played a bigger part than the time off but I am not expecting you to run the same times as your pb.Also it is good your gettig back into it again good luck.Also I had a hip allignment issue during cross country that gave me back problems when I ran so I know how it feels.

I have run a 4:04 mile and thought he might break 5 for the mile. I thought I might have some running knowledge.

I based it mostly on him being in 1:54 shape one year ago and presumably being at a prime age.

I also assumed he posted here because he was pleasantly surprised with his results.

2:28 really surpises me.

I guess the thing here is absoulutely no running for one year and going hard without any prep at all.

I'm pushing 40 and finding it hard to break 5 now even with some fairly regular running so I should have known better.

When you're in shape you take some things for granted.

Breaking 5 minutes for the mile really isn't that easy.

Thanks to the OP for the sample. It was fun.

toro wrote:

I have run a 4:04 mile and thought he might break 5 for the mile. I thought I might have some running knowledge.

I based it mostly on him being in 1:54 shape one year ago and presumably being at a prime age.

Brother, if you ran 4:04 and thought he would step on the track with zero running or cross training in a year and break 5 for a mile... than I am embarassed for you. You must be getting senile in your old age ;)

It really does shock me- but I shouldn't be surprised. Toro aside, all the 4:xx predictions tend to imply that there are (sadly) a great many posters here who have never broken 5 on a regular basis (ie know what type of minimal effort it takes to do so). Ah well. It was an interesting thread at any rate.

former track star wrote:

I am guessing he is very close to his former times. Why post if it's not a surprising result?

Looks like your guess was only partially right. He did have a surprising result, but it was surprisingly bad.

To the OP: Thanks for a good thread because we got to test conjectures against empirical results -- a rare opportunity on this board.

Here are the averages and standard deviations for 41 guesstimates:

Dist. Average StDev

400 58.9 3.82

800 2:16.9 9.19

Mile 5:20.6 19.10

Basically, compared to the actual times, the 400m consensus was a little slow and the 800 and mile were about 1 standard deviation too fast. Not very accurate. "The Wisdom of Crowds" didn't work well here -- groupthink? (My own guesses were in line with the averages, except the mile -- I guessed 5:30 -- not very good, no special insight.)

To Francis L.: I agree and disagree. Yes, guesses of a 4:xx mile were wildly optimistic given the lack of running. (Probably swayed by 50 sec speed and a good 800 PR.) And yes, someone who has never run sub 5 doesn't realize the effort it takes. OTOH, sub 5 seems like the easiest thing in the world and completely unexceptional if you're really fit and used to running your 5-8 mile tempos at 5:20 pace or below. And then there's the distorting effects of memory. I'm an old guy. It's embarrassing to "sprint" 200m repeats at a pace you used to cruise for 8k.

P.S. Good luck with your running, "used to be injured". Hope you stay healthy and break your pr's.

W. Mitty wrote:

Here are the averages and standard deviations for 41 guesstimates:

Dist. Average StDev

400 58.9 3.82

800 2:16.9 9.19

Mile 5:20.6 19.10

Basically, compared to the actual times, the 400m consensus was a little slow and the 800 and mile were about 1 standard deviation too fast. Not very accurate. "The Wisdom of Crowds" didn't work well here -- groupthink?

What were the median scores? I know I can find out for myself, but I'm too lazy.

The average was probably thrown off by ridiculous predictions like a 68 second 400 (a former 50.x second guy better be able to run a lap at 4:30 mile pace no matter how much time he takes off) and a 4:41 mile (it's hard enough to run within 5 seconds of your mile PR when you're in shape, and you expect someone who hasn't trained for a year to do that?)

I had a little advantage guessing because I didn't train at all for over 2 years and ran a couple races one summer so I knew how much slower you can run. While I got the 800 right on, I was actually closer (5 sec) on the mile than I was on the 400 (5.2 sec).

McMillan shows 57/2:05/4:38 so the OP definitely shows even a greater need for some aerobic work than his prs even suggest!!

Good points; I should have included the medians and was nodding my head in agreement with you about how the outliers likely skewed the averages...until I checked:

Medians: 58, 2:18, 5:22

(Averages: 58.9, 2:16.9, 5:20.6)

Another beautiful theory mugged by a gang of ugly facts.

Just want to add that there's quite a bit of difference between very minimal training and no training at all. Over the past few months, I only did a little bit of running because I was busy and couldn't decide whether or not to attempt a comeback.

A typical week would be 2 days of running. Day 1 would be 2-3 miles, and day 2 would be 5-10 minutes of strides. My PRs this year were:

400: 55.1

800: 2:17

mile: 5:26

which is a lot closer to what many people predicted.