What Are Junk Miles

[nikalas]

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.

[CL]

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.

[Mark Smith]

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

[nikalas]

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.

[CL]

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.

[CL]

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.

[nikalas]

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?

[Deadlegs]

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?

[saz]

??? 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????

[Mark Smith]

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!

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.