What Are Junk Miles

I have read a couple of posts referring to running ‘junk’ miles recently.

I run 7 days a week, 52 weeks per year although not all at the same intensity. I have yet to be convinced about having a day off – that equals 52 days a year that I could be training. I do nevertheless have ‘easy days’, perhaps that is what some perceive as ‘junk’

I also follow some basic ‘periodisation’ with phases of Build up, Racing and Recovery during the year.

I am currently happy with my philosophy and programme having arrived at it from over 30 years of trial and error (lots). The base line is that It works for me!

I am interested in what others perceive to be Junk miles

I could be wrong but I always thought 'junk' miles were just the endless miles that people do without purpose that are of little real training benefit (and may actually lead to injury and fatigue).

So instead of just running for example 10 miles a day at the same pace day after day you would be better swapping some of those miles for speed work, interval training etc. Thus getting rid of 'junk' miles with little training benefit and replacing then worth targetted sessions.

That's what I always thought junk miles were anyway but I could be wrong, I never asked!!!!

(PS, I'm really lazy and so end up doing lots of junk miles when traininig lol!!!)

Junk miles to me would be running with no enjoyment. I'm just guessing here mind because I don't think I actually do any :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trog

I have read a couple of posts referring to running ‘junk’ miles recently.

I run 7 days a week, 52 weeks per year although not all at the same intensity. I have yet to be convinced about having a day off – that equals 52 days a year that I could be training. I do nevertheless have ‘easy days’, perhaps that is what some perceive as ‘junk’

I also follow some basic ‘periodisation’ with phases of Build up, Racing and Recovery during the year.

I am currently happy with my philosophy and programme having arrived at it from over 30 years of trial and error (lots). The base line is that It works for me!

I am interested in what others perceive to be Junk miles

---

Thats pretty much it really.

If all you want to do is enjoy your running with out improving then just run for pleasure.

If you want to improve then focus on that, do you want to go faster, longer, run up hills better,etc.

Is it for a specific race/target, what does that race/target have that needs improving.

Mix them up but build in some rest periods sp your body can recover from the extra intensity

They are what I have on my Cathay Pacific Marco Polo Club Card - around 70,000 of them - worth 2 or 3 business upgrades on Cathay - but I haven't been out there for 2 years and think they'll lapse before I do :/

:( All my miles are junk miles at the moment (at least they are if Flopsy's description is correct and I think that sounds about right).

Junk miles for me is what I'll be doing this afternoon. 10k on the treadmill at 3 p.m, just so I can watch the World Cup, guilt free. Yesterday, however, I did 8.2 miles over the moors with nothing but enjoyment on my mind. If you're enjoying running, they ain't junk miles !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak

If all you want to do is enjoy your running with out improving then just run for pleasure.

---

I do run for pleasure, if I didn’t enjoy it I wouldn’t do it.

That doesn’t mean that I am not competitive. I just don’t subscribe to the ‘No pain – No gain’ theory, I believe in training not straining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trog

I do run for pleasure, if I didn’t enjoy it I wouldn’t do it.

That doesn’t mean that I am not competitive. I just don’t subscribe to the ‘No pain – No gain’ theory, I believe in training not straining.

---

Wasn't meant as a dig etc, just that if you enjoy what you are doing but don't want to race then that's cool.

No offence taken Ian.

I am actually racing, but as I am currently in a build up phase I do not mind being a few places and a few minutes further back than I would expect.

That said, I am slowly picking up scalps as my condition improves

A friend of mine is all about the junk miles.

He calls himself Oscar and boy is he moody ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flopsy

I could be wrong but I always thought 'junk' miles were just the endless miles that people do without purpose that are of little real training benefit (and may actually lead to injury and fatigue).

So instead of just running for example 10 miles a day at the same pace day after day you would be better swapping some of those miles for speed work, interval training etc. Thus getting rid of 'junk' miles with little training benefit and replacing then worth targetted sessions.

That's what I always thought junk miles were anyway but I could be wrong, I never asked!!!!

(PS, I'm really lazy and so end up doing lots of junk miles when traininig lol!!!)

---

spot on Flopsy,
i think its more of a problem in road running than in fell,this could be due to mags like runners world giving out training programms with set milages for the week(especially for the London marathon) then it makes peaple concentrate on completing MPW targets and forgetting to put quiality sessions in.

Junk miles are far better than junk food.

Junk miles are the miles when there is no specific purpose to them. For Gary a junk mile is a run done with me rather than having a day off and resting, the speed he would be running is the equivalent of a rest day so the miles are junk in that they do not improve upon his training. That is not to say that a junk mile can't be enjoyable!

Having said that a junk mile can be a session done incorrectly...but then that is a whole different issue.

Debbie

www.pyrenees-haven.com

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.

Junk miles to me are any miles without a purpose, that purpose may be part of a schedule for a planned event but it could also be for de-stressing. Speed work creates the runner high for me so a fast run makes me smile and clears the mind.

Pack runs can often be pointless from a training perspective but great for socialising, are these junk miles? don't think so, i think junk miles are probably different for all of us.

The opposite of junk miles, for me, would probably be quality miles. And quality could mean enjoyment, speed, control, energy, 100% effort, commitment, being fully present in the moment. When I'm not doing (any of) those things I guess I am distracted and the miles pass by more painfully & potentially debilitatingly, through either injury, poor recovery or de-motivation, hence the junk tag.

In the past, when I've dragged my attention into the present and realised Im in junk mile mode, Ive just stopped training/running, as I realise that I'm listening more to my ego than my body. So, as many have said here, it may well be about purpose but it also may be about self acceptance.

when your carrying too much lard around like me, junk miles are fat burning miles. i enjoy my miles, so do my dogs.

I think that you need a mix, you need miles in your legs to get the strength to get around a race, you need the quality session a mixture of strength to get up the hills, you need the speed so you can get along the fast sections and good runable sections. BUT you need rest to recover and to build on the training you have done, you need weeks in the year where you rest because other wise you'll burn out. Mixing it up is also good, cycling, swimming etc. Just my idea though :)

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.

---

Wasn't that the great US coach Bill Bowerman? If easy running is junk (and therefore a waste of time?) then the world's top distance runners do a lot of junk miles! The thing is they run a lot of fast miles too, but the slower ones still have value because they contribute to overall aerobic development. Didn't Lydiard say the most any athlete could do at a good quality pace was 100 miles a week, but that another 100 jogging would still have value?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimW

Wasn't that the great US coach Bill Bowerman? If easy running is junk (and therefore a waste of time?) then the world's top distance runners do a lot of junk miles! The thing is they run a lot of fast miles too, but the slower ones still have value because they contribute to overall aerobic development. Didn't Lydiard say the most any athlete could do at a good quality pace was 100 miles a week, but that another 100 jogging would still have value?

---

That's the point... easy miles are not junk as long as they are easy enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimW

Wasn't that the great US coach Bill Bowerman? If easy running is junk (and therefore a waste of time?) then the world's top distance runners do a lot of junk miles! The thing is they run a lot of fast miles too, but the slower ones still have value because they contribute to overall aerobic development. Didn't Lydiard say the most any athlete could do at a good quality pace was 100 miles a week, but that another 100 jogging would still have value?

---

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.

The only affect of benefit with the 'more is better' philosophy is a loss of body fat. This may in the short term result in greater average speed due to a lighter body, but it'll also lead to a host of long term problems like anxiety and chronic fatigue syndrome.

Those who run a lot to rid their bodies of excessive fat would do far better to run less but faster, and go on a diet. That way they wouldn't drain their bodies of vital reserves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

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.

The only affect of benefit with the 'more is better' philosophy is a loss of body fat. This may in the short term result in greater average speed due to a lighter frame, but it'll also lead to a host of long term problems like anxiety and chronic fatigue syndrome.

Those who run a lot to rid their bodies of excessive fat would do far better to run less but faster, and go on a diet. That way they wouldn't drain their bodies of vital reserves.

---

Can see and have experienced the logic in that, apart from the association with long term anxiety. Sacrificing mileage for an increase in quality and training affect is clearly the way to get fitter and faster - it's hard to argue with that.

However, there are periods when I am not training for any races or rounds or anything in particular when I up the mileage but reduce the hard quality session for the simple reason that i like running and prefer longer runs. If anything i'm more anxious when i don't do this. This takes the more physically stressful elements out and it's lovely, pressure and goal free running. This could be adjudged to be my indulging in junk miles and whilst my speed does drop off a little, i don't find i get more anxious.

What's the theory/evidence behind it? I'd be interested to know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

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.

The only affect of benefit with the 'more is better' philosophy is a loss of body fat. This may in the short term result in greater average speed due to a lighter body, but it'll also lead to a host of long term problems like anxiety and chronic fatigue syndrome.

Those who run a lot to rid their bodies of excessive fat would do far better to run less but faster, and go on a diet. That way they wouldn't drain their bodies of vital reserves.

---

No, but long slow miles do build economy and the body's ability to utilise fat as a fuel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiss Toni

Can see and have experienced the logic in that, apart from the association with long term anxiety. Sacrificing mileage for an increase in quality and training affect is clearly the way to get fitter and faster - it's hard to argue with that.

However, there are periods when I am not training for any races or rounds or anything in particular when I up the mileage but reduce the hard quality session for the simple reason that i like running and prefer longer runs. If anything i'm more anxious when i don't do this. This takes the more physically stressful elements out and it's lovely, pressure and goal free running. This could be adjudged to be my indulging in junk miles and whilst my speed does drop off a little, i don't find i get more anxious.

What's the theory/evidence behind it? I'd be interested to know

---

Yes you prefer running longer because it's easier. There's a thread called favourite race length(or something similar) and a lot of individuals were saying they prefer the longer distances because it provided more of a test. The truth is of course that they prefer the longer distances because they are easier. The test that they refer to is probably the amount of stress their ligaments and tendons are subjected to.

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. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

No, but long slow miles do build economy and the body's ability to utilise fat as a fuel.

---

Well then ultra-distance runners should be the fastest runners in the world, with an economy of motion and fat burning equal to a Kangaroo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Well then ultra-distance runners should be the fastest runners in the world, with an economy of motion and fat burning equal to a Kangaroo.

---

They are the fastest runners in the world over Ultra distances... what have kangaroos got to do with anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Well then ultra-distance runners should be the fastest runners in the world, with an economy of motion and fat burning equal to a Kangaroo.

---

Not sure I'm following this. Are you suggesting someone training for a marathon should run a few fast miles?

??? now I am confused

All it does is drains the system of vital chemical resources - what chemicals are being drained here?

And are you really saying that Vo2 max is a direct collelation with aerobic condition????

Hmm, if the evidence linking longer runs to anxiety is limited to TDF elites I think I'm safe. My long run phases are not comparable to that.

I actually also love short hard races and agree that they're much harder than longer, steadier runs. I also think 10k races are harder, if you really go for it as there is no hiding place or respite!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Yes you prefer running longer because it's easier. There's a thread called favourite race length(or something similar) and a lot of individuals were saying they prefer the longer distances because it provided more of a test. The truth is of course that they prefer the longer distances because they are easier. The test that they refer to is probably the amount of stress their ligaments and tendons are subjected to.

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. 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.

---

What is the percentage of Tour cyclists who are addicted to cocaine etc. Is it greater than the general population? Is it greater than amongst other sports? Is it a feature of sportsmen retiring young and missing the thrill of competing? Is it, perhaps , linked to the acceptance of performance drug use in the pro peleton?
Is the least likely reason, if it is in fact true, because of junk miles. or is that why they are called junk miles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

They are the fastest runners in the world over Ultra distances... what have kangaroos got to do with anything?

---

Nikalas you don't even get the implications of your previous post. If long slow miles (junk miles)'build' economy then for every long slow mile ran a gain in economy would result. Since there are ultra distance shufflers who cover 200miles a week or more, you'd expect them to have exceptional economy.

All I'm saying is in that case they should have an economy of motion approaching a Kangaroo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadlegs

Not sure I'm following this. Are you suggesting someone training for a marathon should run a few fast miles?

---

No. This thread is about junk miles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swiss Toni

Hmm, if the evidence linking longer runs to anxiety is limited to TDF elites I think I'm safe. My long run phases are not comparable to that.

I actually also love short hard races and agree that they're much harder than longer, steadier runs. I also think 10k races are harder, if you really go for it as there is no hiding place or respite!

---

You're failing to understand the connection. Too much training no matter what sport you take part in will affect the brain and consequently the mind in a very negative way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Nikalas you don't even get the implications of your previous post. If long slow miles (junk miles)'build' economy then for every long slow mile ran a gain in economy would result. Since there are ultra distance shufflers who cover 200miles a week or more, you'd expect them to have exceptional economy..

---

They do have exceptional economy.

If you're an ultra runner, then doing long slow miles isn't junk... they're specific to the demands of your sport and therefore incredibly relevant.

Junk miles are simply unfocussed miles without any training purpose relevant to your goals. For many runners, they're the nothing no man's land that are neither slow enough to build economy/endurance or fast enough to raise threshold. They don't have any significant training effect and simply increase the risk of injury. That said, if getting out and just running gives you a psychological boost then it could be argued that that isn't junk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadlegs

What is the percentage of Tour cyclists who are addicted to cocaine etc. Is it greater than the general population? Is it greater than amongst other sports? Is it a feature of sportsmen retiring young and missing the thrill of competing? Is it, perhaps , linked to the acceptance of performance drug use in the pro peleton?
Is the least likely reason, if it is in fact true, because of junk miles. or is that why they are called junk miles.

---

Probably the most likely. I actually saw a world class cyclist in my village smoking outside a pub. It's well know that fags affect the chemistry of the brain.

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.

---

Very weak and comes across as if you've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder... stop the cheap snipes and answer the question.

Since when has spelling got anything to do with it - everyone knows that I have poor spelling - or do you always like mocking for the sake of it and a feeling of making cheap points?

I will take it that you are unable to answer what are idiotic statements in terms of science even with correct spelling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

They do have exceptional economy.

If you're an ultra runner, then doing long slow miles isn't junk... they're specific to the demands of your sport and therefore incredibly relevant.

Junk miles are simply unfocussed miles without any training purpose relevant to your goals. For many runners, they're the nothing no man's land that are neither slow enough to build economy/endurance or fast enough to raise threshold. They don't have any significant training effect and simply increase the risk of injury. That said, if getting out and just running gives you a psychological boost then it could be argued that that isn't junk.

---

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.

So when do you know if you've tipped the balance from good training runs to junk miles?

Don't complicate this question with distances. I run anything from short fells to marathons, and don't tend to do any specific training apart from increase in distances.