What Are Junk Miles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

I forgot which of the legendary coaches said it but.... "the problem with most runners is that their slow runs are too fast and their fast runs too slow".... sums up junk miles really.

---

Back in the dim and distant past I've had opportunities to train with some seriously quick runners - predominantly road and track. The statement Nik makes above is very true of a lot of the UK athletes I've trained with, but is not true of the foreign athletes - they all, without question, do very slow mileage and very fast speed work. One Russian Olympic champion refused to do long runs with us because we ran too fast, yet kicked our arses in sessions.

Two of the foreign athletes in question have run 2.06 for a marathon, yet in the past decade only two Brits have broken 2.10. Which ones have the training methods right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Oh I agree in terms of energy, but not in terms of movement. Anyone who shuffles hours on end would naturally be more economical in terms of energy than a 4minute miler, because the pace is slow and when you're constantly draining the energy from your body it will rebel. The only way it can do that is to force the athlete to a speed equal to a shuffle.

---

You're bouncing all over the place here CL... I never mentioned movement when talking about economy, it was you who made that leap, I was referring to utilisation of fuel types. This is easily measured by gas analysis on a sub-maximal treadmill test and shows the point, relative to exertion, where the athlete is no longer able to use fat as a fuel and carbohydrate metabolism takes over completely. Take an ultra-runner and, because of the disciplined long slow distance work they've done, they will be able to maintain a degree of fat metabolism at a much higher level. This has obvious implications for distance running as you can only assimilate a relatively small amount of carbohydrate on the go so, unless you can tap those fat reserves, you'll come to a grinding halt. Distance runners develop their ability to utilise fat with long steady base work. It's essential to their performance so isn't junk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

I'll answer you and Nikalas in one swoop. I find it shocking that a sports scientist with a degree can't even spell a word relevant to their speciality. And if they haven't taken the time to learn the correct spelling of a common scientific word then they're hardly likely to understand the implications of anything else I say.

---

We all make typos, some people genuinely struggle with spelling and this is only a forum debate, not a dissertation. Don't forget CL, you misspelt my name incessantly despite my corrections. This answer really reeks of sour grapes and/or not having the knowledge to back up your statement.

I hoping this one might take me to Master status... much more fun than the Master Maker :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

You're bouncing all over the place here CL... I never mentioned movement when talking about economy, it was you who made that leap, I was referring to utilisation of fuel types. This is easily measured by gas analysis on a sub-maximal treadmill test and shows the point, relative to exertion, where the athlete is no longer able to use fat as a fuel and carbohydrate metabolism takes over completely. Take an ultra-runner and, because of the disciplined long slow distance work they've done, they will be able to maintain a degree of fat metabolism at a much higher level. This has obvious implications for distance running as you can only assimilate a relatively small amount of carbohydrate on the go so, unless you can tap those fat reserves, you'll come to a grinding halt. Distance runners develop their ability to utilise fat with long steady base work. It's essential to their performance so isn't junk.

---

Nice segue, but totally false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Nice segue, but totally false.

---

Facts? Evidence?.... always more illuminating than sweeping sentences.

See post 24... it was you who brought up movement, I've always been talking about fuel utilisation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

I hoping this one might take me to Master status... much more fun than the Master Maker :D

---

:D

I'd love to be at a level where i was forced to identify junk miles and eliminate them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

See post 24... it was you who brought up movement, I've always been talking about fuel utilisation.

---

Nice try but the best bit about post 24 is the word 'and' right in the middle.

Don't know what Tim W is going to make of all this when he decides to resurface. Probably still trying to work out the old running vs cycling conundrum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominion

Back in the dim and distant past I've had opportunities to train with some seriously quick runners - predominantly road and track. The statement Nik makes above is very true of a lot of the UK athletes I've trained with, but is not true of the foreign athletes - they all, without question, do very slow mileage and very fast speed work. One Russian Olympic champion refused to do long runs with us because we ran too fast, yet kicked our arses in sessions.

Two of the foreign athletes in question have run 2.06 for a marathon, yet in the past decade only two Brits have broken 2.10. Which ones have the training methods right?

---

Might not just be down to training methods there Dom. So it doesn't prove your contention.

If they are foolish questions why can you not answer them?

People with dystexia struggle to spell and struggle to learn to spell, but keep on mocking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

I'm sorry I've got to say this Saz, but if a degree level sport scientist can't even spell 'correlation,' then they probably aren't going to understand anything of value in sports science.

---

In my experience people who say "I'm sorry I've got to say this" mean no such thing but are hypocrites who are about to relish what they "must" say.

And as for Sarah's spelling: well presumably she managed to spell aetiology correctly when it was part of the title of her PhD: a word which, I suggest, most Forum readers would struggle even to define.

All I can say on this thread is if anyone dares to say that Lydiard is wrong about anything goes right down in my book.
Just to set the record straight regarding Lydiard and milage.
1 He never recomended easy milage for anything other than "Shake out" sessions usualy easy runs on a morning ,He said these runs "sent you body a message".
Remember we are talking relative hear ,easy morning runs to athelets he trained were around 6.30 mmp pace.
2 His whole training philosophy was to buil up to 100 mpw of miles relative to the pace each athelete was capable of running. i.e an athelet may start at 8.00 mmp and end up running 7 mmp. For his top runners this was 6.00 mmp down to 5.30 and faster.
On another topic ,our friend CL ,a well read and educated man but he does seem to get the fundamentals wrong.
He has mentioned two coaches ,Lydiard and Cerruty recently and in both cases been wrong.
I do not have a PHD in aything other than knowing what I am talking about regarding the theories of the great coaches .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Nice try but the best bit about post 24 is the word 'and' right in the middle.

---

You're not doing very well on this one CL... all a bit desperate sounding and not a lot of substance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Yes I did but I've not got a phd in people names, and I did after my initial mistake proceed to wind you up some what. Now the questions Saz asked me are foolish and really don't deserve an answer.

---

I don't think it's a foolish question at all, fundamental really and, if it's so foolish, you should be able to put it to bed quickly and easily. Dyslexia isn't something to mock really.

I need a beer after reading all that...

CL you are a quack. Every forum needs one!

Christopher

I am unsure what your issue is other than my spelling and where I am being foolish?

You stated
Lydiard did say something to that effect, but he was wrong. The slower miles that athletes do have no effect on aerobic condition. If you were correct in your assertion then ultra-distance runners I.e. those who shuffle round the Bob Graham, would have the highest V02 maxes in the world.

This to me is a little ambiguous, and I therefore asked for clarity re do you believe that VO2 max equates to aerobic condition
?

You also stated that endurance drains vitial chemical resources, but without stating what and I am genuinely interested in knowing what these are

In the warm up thread you quite rightly took Niklas to task over producing solid evidence to support his claims, but now you seem to be backing off doing so yourself?

Saz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.P.E Knott

All I can say on this thread is if anyone dares to say that Lydiard is wrong about anything goes right down in my book.
Just to set the record straight regarding Lydiard and milage.
1 He never recomended easy milage for anything other than "Shake out" sessions usualy easy runs on a morning ,He said these runs "sent you body a message".
Remember we are talking relative hear ,easy morning runs to athelets he trained were around 6.30 mmp pace.
2 His whole training philosophy was to buil up to 100 mpw of miles relative to the pace each athelete was capable of running. i.e an athelet may start at 8.00 mmp and end up running 7 mmp. For his top runners this was 6.00 mmp down to 5.30 and faster.
On another topic ,our friend CL ,a well read and educated man but he does seem to get the fundamentals wrong.
He has mentioned two coaches ,Lydiard and Cerruty recently and in both cases been wrong.
I do not have a PHD in aything other than knowing what I am talking about regarding the theories of the great coaches .

---

Mr Knott. At one time I would have defended Arthur Lydiard against any criticisms. Now though I see his errors clearly. His fundamental error was in assuming that everybody requires 100miles per week of running close to their maximum steady state, with up to the same again in supplementary jogging, during the conditioning phase. This conditioning period was followed by 6 weeks of 6 days a week hill springing sessions on a 1in 3.

That was how he trained his athletes in the 1960s when 'Run to the top' was published. In 1978 he published another book, which incidently is a collectors item which I have a copy off, called 'Run the Lydiard way.' In that book his fundamental philosophy was the same, but when you look at the schedules they were nothing like what he was preaching in 1960.

Gone was the advice everyone from 800m to the marathon should run 100miles a week +100miles a week of jogging. Instead if you look at the training schedule he wrote for middle distance runners it amounted to about 70 miles per week. Gone also was the daily hill sessions.

In that book he also defended Lasse Viren against blood doping allegations. Lydiard didn't believe that blood doping would work. I doubt whether he later undertood the significance of EPO and it's power to turn middle and distance events in to sprints.

So there you have it. Oh one other thing. That story of the rabbits warming-up was in Lydiard's book. It was a story told to Lydiard about Cerutty by an American coach who heard Cerutty lecture.

Ah the old quality vs quantity debate. This debate never goes away primarily because there are always athletes or known athletes that have had success with both methods.

This would indicate therefore that there is an element of individuality in each of us and each athlete will produce an optimal performance with different mixes of aerobic and anaerobic running. I can tell you what works for me, but I am just one athlete. When coaches or anyone on here for that matter start to spout off 'the training we as athletes should be doing to run fast' it should never be taken as an absolute because of my previous point.

If you truely understand biochemistry, anatomy and physiology you will understand the vast differences in our made up and dynamics. It is only when you appreciate this, that you can start to understand what is optimal for the individual and therefore what are junk miles within a structured running programme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roy Scott

Ah the old quality vs quantity debate. This debate never goes away primarily because there are always athletes or known athletes that have had success with both methods.

This would indicate therefore that there is an element of individuality in each of us and each athlete will produce an optimal performance with different mixes of aerobic and anaerobic running. I can tell you what works for me, but I am just one athlete. When coaches or anyone on here for that matter start to spout off 'the training we as athletes should be doing to run fast' it should never be taken as an absolute because of my previous point.

If you truely understand biochemistry, anatomy and physiology you will understand the vast differences in our made up and dynamics. It is only when you appreciate this, that you can start to understand what is optimal for the individual and therefore what are junk miles within a structured running programme.

---

I agree and this was the fundamental mistake that Lydiard made. He assumed that 100 miles a week was right for everyone. In fact today it's not right for anyone and anyone who thinks that running 100 miles a week is a requirement for ultimate aerobic fitness is one slate short of a roof(As Hugo would say).

Just one thing I think should be made clear. You mentioned 'vast differences.' This isn't a vast difference in terms of essentials. We are all the same I.e. we all require a source of food etc, but of course the measurements are different.

Nice to see you've side stepped the questions posed by Saz for the second time. The problem I have with you is that all you do is quote other peoples work. Have you actually done your own research to back up or counter Lydiards claims?

It looks to me that Lydiards later work was more akin to Frank Horwills methods? Perhaps Lydiard was just a plagurist as well?

I quite like the way CL carefully archives all these grudges waiting to act on them at later dates, i myself am quietly grinding numerous axes over people (i use the word loosely) who did things to me i can't possibly let go at secondary school; mostly. I keep getting notification of these reunion events where people turn up and reconnect with 'friends' from the past but i can't bring myself to go along with the sole intention of revenge, it would be unsuitable for the occasion. This isn't to say i'm supporting Christopher's treatment of Saz as i don't know the details and i doubt he'd thank me for it anyway, i think he's more than happy as a one-man-band.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr brightside

I quite like the way CL carefully archives all these grudges waiting to act on them at later dates, i myself am quietly grinding numerous axes over people (i use the word loosely) who did things to me i can't possibly let go at secondary school; mostly. I keep getting notification of these reunion events where people turn up and reconnect with 'friends' from the past but i can't bring myself to go along with the sole intention of revenge, it would be unsuitable for the occasion. This isn't to say i'm supporting Christopher's treatment of Saz as i don't know the details and i doubt he'd thank me for it anyway, i think he's more than happy as a one-man-band.

---

Actually post 107 on the warming-up thread was evidence for NOT doing a warm-up. Thought I'd put you right on that Mr B. Aside from that I agree with you on the digging up of speed bumps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Actually post 107 on the warming-up thread was evidence for NOT doing a warm-up. Thought I'd put you right on that Mr B. Aside from that I agree with you on the digging up of speed bumps.

---

That was a blast from the past! I'm not sure it's conclusive evidence, the article reads as though he effectively underperformed despite setting a record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dominion

Nice to see you've side stepped the questions posed by Saz for the second time. The problem I have with you is that all you do is quote other peoples work. Have you actually done your own research to back up or counter Lydiards claims?

It looks to me that Lydiards later work was more akin to Frank Horwills methods? Perhaps Lydiard was just a plagurist as well?

---

Ok. I realise what is obvious to me is not obvious to others. Tim Werrett made the point that the easy miles(junk) would improve aerobic condition. If that was so then you'd expect the V02 max of these runners to continue to increase, since V02 is a measure of oxygen utilisation in the production of energy. In fact ultra distance runners have very low V02 maxes considering the number of miles they run.

It has to be that way because the more you run the slower you have to go, and the slower you go the less intense the exercise. It is a balance of time and intensity that is key in distance events. Do too much and the chemical reserves that should go in to overcompensation will be constantly used up in compensation.

In regard to Lydiard there is nothing wrong with changing his mind, when he realised his mistakes. There is a lot wrong though in not publicly stating one's errors and findings when others will be helped with such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr brightside

That was a blast from the past! I'm not sure it's conclusive evidence, the article reads as though he effectively underperformed despite setting a record.

---

Did he ever run as fast again with a warm-up?

Vengeance is a dish best served cold.

I prefer Hot Dogs.

Me too. Your avatar just reminded me it's dinnertime.

I'm having a Growler for dinner.

That's the dog sorted. Now, what shall I have?

Ha. Just threw a tub of pasta sauce all over the kitchen floor. Dog's chuffed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

I haven't forgotten the time you got Graham-B to indirectly criticise me in the fell runner magazine for giving good advice. Apart from that, bad spelling and athletic achievments I know nothing about you.

---

CL,

You cannot recall so vividly just one paragraph in a Profile spread over six pages of the Autumn 2008 Fellrunner and also pretend "I know nothing about" Sarah. Unless you are telling me my 3000+ words were a waste of paper?

I have reread what Sarah "got" me to write and I think it was and still is a fair observation.

And I am still pleased with my title for the piece: "Laugh and be happy"

It's a simple thing to do.

GB

CL

I did not get GB to say anything, I talked, he wrote down; you have decided to a view I hold re forum posters personally, that is your choice.

I take it that after 2 requests from me plus others you do not want/are able to clearly answer the questions I asked you (rather than your intrepreation of them), again your choice - perhaps something to consider when others on here do not always answer your questions.

Saz

achievements

Are we going to find out which "vital chemical resources" are drained then?

CL

I asked you two questions

One - relating to your post 22 - a simple yes or no question - is it your view that Vo2 max is synomous with aerobic conditioning, or have I misintrepreated what you said?

Two - relating to your post 25 - as per Hanks' post - what are the vital chemical resources that are drained from the body

Neither of these has been answered

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

.....
No amount of running slow is equal to running fast. All it does is drains the system of vital chemical resources, the very resources that should be used in producing a stronger and fitter body.

---

Depends on what the runner is trying to achieve surely? Are you suggesting an ultra runner would be best served by a few short fast track sessions a week?

As has been already asked, what are these "vital chemical resources" that are drained by running for a longer time at a moderate intensity, vs a short time at a high intensity?

Surely you provide nutrition for your body based on it's output.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

As to the evidence behind it just look at the number of Tour De France cyclists over the years addicted to cocaine and amphetamines. You see that much training on a daily basis disturbs the chemistry of the brain leading to serious mental health problems like anxiety and depression.

---

There have been a number of TdF cyclists who have taken drugs to get the edge. Back in the day it was the done thing. There's no secret if you get into any drug, for many people that can lead to various health problems. It's not confined to cyclists, look at the iron curtain athletes from back in the day.

Your last sentence is junk. :)