What Are Junk Miles

CL has an issue with mental health and has made several sweeping inaccurate statements causing distress in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saz

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

---

Saz Id be guessing CL meant electrolytes. Thats the chemicals hes talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richpips

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.




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. :)

---

Christopher has a point
Proffesional Cycling has always had a high proportion of suicides, depression, and health problems within its ranks. There must be some tie up with this and the effects that either doping or riding 20odd thousand miles a year has on the brain. Im sure of that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daz h

Christopher has a point
Proffesional Cycling has always had a high proportion of suicides, depression, and health problems within its ranks. There must be some tie up with this and the effects that either doping or riding 20odd thousand miles a year has on the brain. Im sure of that

---

Are you sure about that? The only cyclist I can recall commiting suicide was about to be arrested for badly injuring and his father and feared jail. Anyway, why not long distant runners and swimmers?
I know you read a lot about cycling. You are more likely to read about those with problems than those who retire quietly and have a happy life. There are always people who struggle .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daz h

Saz Id be guessing CL meant electrolytes. Thats the chemicals hes talking about.

---

Isn't that why God invented Nuun tablets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daz h

Christopher has a point
Proffesional Cycling has always had a high proportion of suicides, depression, and health problems within its ranks. There must be some tie up with this and the effects that either doping or riding 20odd thousand miles a year has on the brain. Im sure of that

---

I just don't think that's right and don't believe that cycling has any more of a doping problem than Track and Field. Any sport played at an elite level has incredible demands and cases of athletes going off the rails are not just limited to cycling or even endurance sports. Look at young tennis players and swimmers burning out, eating disorders in aesthetic sports such as gymnastics, footballers doing totally mad things and Tiger Wood's shenanigans.

I think Deadlegs has hit the nail on the head that you've just read more about cycling and have a skewed view... for every Paul Kimmage or Joe Parkin exposé on cycling I can guarantee you could find an equal number for a lot of other sports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richpips

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?

---

That's the key point.

What constitutes Junk Miles to an individual athlete is directly related to what their training goal is. Any training that does not contribute towards moving towards that goal is junk.

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. .

---

You gave good advice :w00t: ?? About what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

That's the key point.

What constitutes Junk Miles to an individual athlete is directly related to what their training goal is. Any training that does not contribute towards moving towards that goal is junk.

---

Judging it that way means I don't do any junk miles, because my primary goal is to get outside on the hills and enjoy myself. I can't remember a mile that I haven't in some way enjoyed or at least derived satisfaction from.

I'm sure, though, that not all of my miles contribute to the secondary goals of being able to go longer or faster.

Jim

There seems to be considerable excitement over my comments on here, particularly in regard to the 'vital chemical reserves.' It really isn't important to know the names of all the chemicals involved. What is important and can be grasped by even a 'tree hanging Sloth,' is the principle.

Nobody knows what gravity consists of, but everyone is aware of its consequences. And if you attempt to jump off a skyscraper without a parachute because no one has named the components of gravity, you'll find yourself coming to a very abrupt emergency stop. The witnesses of your fall will also discover that the human skull wasn't designed to be an airbag.

Everything in the body exists in finite quantities. Fuel, oxygen, water, vitamins, hormones etc. Therefore it makes sense to use what exists as economically as possible. Constantly using up those 'vital chemical reserves' in overcoming longer and longer training sessions is the worst training mistake an individual can make.

One last point. The fact that concepts like recovery, compensation and overcompensation are used by sports scientists implies the existence and depletion of 'vital chemical reserves.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

You gave good advice :w00t: ?? About what?

---

About so called sports scientists who refer to phony research that doesn't even include a time, date and place.

Quote:

---

Nobody knows what gravity consists of

---

Gravity is a force that acts on a mass due to the presence of another mass, and General Relativity tells us that this is due to the effect of Curvature of Space-Time. It is thought to be mediated by the graviton exchange particle.

I refer you to "A Brief History of Time" by Professor Stephen Hawking for a better and more detailed explanation, although the Wikipedia entry seems to cover most of the basics at a glance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antisocial

CL has an issue with mental health and has made several sweeping inaccurate statements causing distress in the past.

---

So depression has nothing to do with draining 'the vital chemical reserves' of the brain? Ok it must be the result of one's philosophy then.

Quote:

---

So depression has nothing to do with draining 'the vital chemical reserves' of the brain?

---

Not necessarily - it can be a chemical inbalance in the brain. Although, from my admittedly fairly limited knowledge on the subject area, I belive that depression isn't a diease that is fully understood (not many are completely understood).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

About so called sports scientists who refer to phony research that doesn't even include a time, date and place.

---

Hajoglou, A., C. Forster, J.J. de Koning, A. Lucia, T.W. Kernozek, and J.P. Porcari. Effect of warm-up on cycle time trial performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37:1608-14, 2005.

You'd be hard pressed to get "phony research" into such a journal and what possible reason or incentive would there be for conducting flawed research in this area? There's hardly a massive Warming-Up industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

About so called sports scientists who refer to phony research that doesn't even include a time, date and place.

---

In general, most peer-reviewed scientific papers don't give an exact date when the study took place, where etc. Some clinical trials do, but that's because they are more of a special case.

Normally, it's just submission date of the paper, publication date of the paper and author's affiliations (e.g. University of Leeds etc). Even then, authors may work together across institutions, so it is not always 100% clear where the actual work took place. In the vast majority of cases, this information is not relevant to the work reported and/or quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

There seems to be considerable excitement over my comments on here, particularly in regard to the 'vital chemical reserves.' It really isn't important to know the names of all the chemicals involved. What is important and can be grasped by even a 'tree hanging Sloth,' is the principle.

Nobody knows what gravity consists of, but everyone is aware of its consequences. And if you attempt to jump off a skyscraper without a parachute because no one has named the components of gravity, you'll find yourself coming to a very abrupt emergency stop. The witnesses of your fall will also discover that the human skull wasn't designed to be an airbag.

Everything in the body exists in finite quantities. Fuel, oxygen, water, vitamins, hormones etc. Therefore it makes sense to use what exists as economically as possible. Constantly using up those 'vital chemical reserves' in overcoming longer and longer training sessions is the worst training mistake an individual can make.

One last point. The fact that concepts like recovery, compensation and overcompensation are used by sports scientists implies the existence and depletion of 'vital chemical reserves.'

---

One of your best ever... I don't quite know what to make of the sheer insanity, randomness and wrongness of this post. Keep up the good work!

Fuel: Otherwise known as food... plenty in Tesco last time I looked.
Oxygen: What's that stuff all around us.... oh yes, air and 21% is oxygen.
Water: Rain, rivers, seas, oceans, beer, electrolyte drinks.......etc, etc.
Vitamins: Food, sunlight, pills etc etc etc
Hormones: synthesised in body continuously.

None of those are really finite are they?

I'm genuinely intrigued by the "Vital Chemical Reserves" though... maybe you've discovered the Elixir of Life.... come on, give us more details please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

Not necessarily - it can be a chemical inbalance in the brain. Although, from my admittedly fairly limited knowledge on the subject area, I belive that depression isn't a diease that is fully understood (not many are completely understood).

---

What does a 'chemical imbalance' imply?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

In general, most peer-reviewed scientific papers don't give an exact date when the study took place, where etc. Some clinical trials do, but that's because they are more of a special case.

Normally, it's just submission date of the paper, publication date of the paper and author's affiliations (e.g. University of Leeds etc). Even then, authors may work together across institutions, so it is not always 100% clear where the actual work took place. In the vast majority of cases, this information is not relevant to the work reported and/or quality.

---

If it's not clear where the research took place, then it probably didn't take place. The date, time and place of research is the only way to validate results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

One of your best ever... I don't quite know what to make of the sheer insanity, randomness and wrongness of this post. Keep up the good work!

Fuel: Otherwise known as food... plenty in Tesco last time I looked.
Oxygen: What's that stuff all around us.... oh yes, air and 21% is oxygen.
Water: Rain, rivers, seas, oceans, beer, electrolyte drinks.......etc, etc.
Vitamins: Food, sunlight, pills etc etc etc
Hormones: synthesised in body continuously.

None of those are really finite are they?

I'm genuinely intrigued by the "Vital Chemical Reserves" though... maybe you've discovered the Elixir of Life.... come on, give us more details please.

---

What an utterly stupid response. The best thing for you is to go back to the Lake District for an eternal chill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Heisenberg had a discussion with Einstein. He said to Einstein 'A good theory must be based on directly observable magnitudes.'

To which Einstein replied: 'But you don't seriously believe that none but observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory.'

Heisenberg: 'Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity.'
Einstein: 'Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning, but it's nonsense all the same.'

Nobody knows what gravity is. Certainly not Stephen Hawking who isn't even a physicist. He's belongs to the 'rabbit out of the hat' brigade.

---

Firstly, you have truncated the quote between Heisenberg and Einstein, and this illuminates more of the discussion than you have quoted. Secondly, this refers to Quantum theory, of which Einstein was a noteable opponent ("God does not play with Dice"). But this is getting away from the point. General Relativity is not a perfect theory by any stretch, but observations (e.g. deviations in Mercury's orbit around the Sun, as to those predicted by Newton, Gravitation Lensing etc) have validated it and it is accepted by nearly every physicst and the general scientific community.

I do not know what you mean by "rabbit out of the hat brigade"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

What does a 'chemical imbalance' imply?

---

Chemical inbalance implies a change in levels to baseline. This could be that a particular chemical in lower than normal or be that one is higher than normal. There are many possible reasons for causing an imbalance. I am not discounting your theory that overtraining could lead to a chemical imbalance, but it is only one possible theory.

As you have already pulled me up on the point, perhaps you could provide observable evidence for this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

What an utterly stupid response. The best thing for you is to go back to the Lake District for an eternal chill.

---

Tetchy, tetchy, easy tiger... if you can't take it.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

If it's not clear where the research took place, then it probably didn't take place. The date, time and place of research is the only way to validate results.

---

Do you live your whole life under the delusion of a massive all encompassing conspiracy theory? It's a wonder you ever leave your house.

Personally, I see sound scientific methodology, robust analysis and interpretation of results and a publication in a respected peer reviewed journal as being pretty good validation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

If it's not clear where the research took place, then it probably didn't take place. The date, time and place of research is the only way to validate results.

---

A fundamental point of science is that results should not depend on (a). the person carrying out the experiment. (b). the location of the experiment and (c). the time of the experiment.

Take, for example, a measurement the stiffness (or to be exact and scientific, the Young's modulus) of a pure titanium rod, then if you were to measure the Young's modulus using the same experimental method at 12pm on Sunday 31st October 2010 in Australia and I were to measure an identical rod at 5pm on Monday 1st November 2010, then we would get the same answer (within the error of the experiment).

As for validating the results in a paper, I prefer to look at the results gained and the methods used and see if I can draw the same conclusions that the authors have come to without being biased towards my own point of view (not always easy).

So, what are junk miles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

A fundamental point of science is that results should not depend on (a). the person carrying out the experiment. (b). the location of the experiment and (c). the time of the experiment.

Take, for example, a measurement the stiffness (or to be exact and scientific, the Young's modulus) of a pure titanium rod, then if you were to measure the Young's modulus using the same experimental method at 12pm on Sunday 31st October 2010 in Australia and I were to measure an identical rod at 5pm on Monday 1st November 2010, then we would get the same answer (within the error of the experiment).

As for validating the results in a paper, I prefer to look at the results gained and the methods used and see if I can draw the same conclusions that the authors have come to without being biased towards my own point of view (not always easy).

---

In respect of human subjects, the time, date and place is of utmost importance. Without that information we may as well make things up. Which is what a lot of researchers actually do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fnstein

So, what are junk miles?

---

See post 95 unless you've got some time to kill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

What constitutes a 'perfect theory?' A theory must contain no contradictions to be perfect. If it does then it should be discarded. Gravity does produce a force, but the point you miss is nobody knows what produces this force. Explaining it in terms of space time and curvature doesn't tell you either, because you'd have to answer the question 'a curvature of what?'

The problem with the physics community is they have embraced the mysticism passed down from Bohr,Heisenberg, Hawking etc. I call them the 'rabbit out of the hat brigade.' In Hawking's case his ideas stem from a philisophical flaw. Namely that the universe was created out of 'absolutely nothing.'

---

As you say, a "perfect theory" must be just that. No theory is entirely perfect, because observations cannot prove a theory, only disprove. All observations to date have agreed with General Relativity. Is it perfect, no. Does it contain problems, yes. That is what Physicists who work in the are working on. For practical purposes, General Relativity is a good theory. GPS satellites, for example work because we understand General Relativity.
The Physics of the big bang are not easy to (a) understand and (b) explain. But, if you mean that he believes that the observable Universe came from a singularity, then yes, Professor Hawking does believe this (as far as I am aware, I don't know him personally). This is hardly a philosophical flaw. His understandings of the theories in Cosmology have led him to that conclusion. This point also does not invalidate other theories that he has developed. Anyway, General Relativity was developed by Albert Einstein and not Stephen Hawking. He merely explains General Relativity in laymans terms in "A Brief History of Time" and then goes on to discuss some of his own theories.

The Physics community have built on theories and observations that were developed by the scientists you have mentioned, along with a great deal of others. At every step of the way, there have been dissenters and also observations made to prove/disprove Quantum theory (which I believe is the "mysticism" to which you refer). However, the overwhelming evidence has shown that this theory, although with its flaws is generally correct. Again, Physicists are working to understand the flaws and correct/modify the theories.
Quantum theory is very hard to understand, but it is not mysticism. Just because you do not understand how and why the scientific community derives a theory, it does not make it automatically wrong. They are not "pulling a rabbit of a hat," instead they are working in a subject that is hard to understand and hard to fully explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

In respect of human subjects, the time, date and place is of utmost importance. Without that information we may as well make things up. Which is what a lot of researchers actually do.

---

No you are wrong.

The example I gave for the rod still holds, but when dealing with human parameters (any medical-based subject area), you are dealing with a larger natural variability and therefore larger error.

I don't know any researchers who make things up. I do know some whom I feel draw the wrong conclusions from the data they have produced/used and others who have done poor experiments, but to actually completely fake a paper, no.

There have been examples of researchers faking papers (one guy about cold fusion, but I can't remember his name at the moment), but they are very isolated and rare incidences, mainly because when someone else comes to prove/disprove the conclusions, they get found out very quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

See post 95 unless you've got some time to kill.

---

We do seem to have veered slightly away from the main point, don't we!

Relax everybody. If CL chooses to disagree with the accepted opinion of almost everything then let him, it's a free country etc. Just don't try to persuade him he's wrong. Or if you do don't get upset when you can't . Enjoy the debate.....after all he may be right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fozzy

We do seem to have veered slightly away from the main point, don't we!

---

Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of Mr Leigh's mind... you never quite know where it's going to take you but it's always an interesting ride.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadlegs

Relax everybody. If CL chooses to disagree with the accepted opinion of almost everything then let him, it's a free country etc. Just don't try to persuade him he's wrong. Or if you do don't get upset when you can't . Enjoy the debate.....after all he may be right!

---

I used to get stressed and overly exasperated by him but now just enjoy his nuttiness and it's taking me ever nearer to Master status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of Mr Leigh's mind... you never quite know where it's going to take you but it's always an interesting ride.

---

I am enjoying the debate. It's been a few years since I got to teach Physics and basic scientific principles to someone.

Jeepers what a waste of 5 minutes of my life :). Like most things that CL posts about I think he's more or less right or at least more right than wrong; I doubt that Usain Bolt does much long distance chugging but I'm sure he does do an awful lot of running in short spurts at full pelt. Ditto I suspect that Paula Radcliffe does an awful lot of long distance stuff but at an uncomfortably hard pace most of the time.

I on the other hand don't give a flying duck and just run as often and as far as I like at whatever pace I want to. To me its all about being in the hills, with running being my preferred method of transporting myself around them.

For those who are interested in the said duck, it is always helpful if statments of assertion can be clarified if requested

I do believe that there is a massive all encompassing conspiracy.

Philisophical? As in philistine or philosophical. That was a Freudian slip I reckon.

The 13.1 miles that I did in the Birmingham half marathon on Sunday were junk miles (never really got going, never felt good but body not really stressed). Or have I missed the point?