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.
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.
Re: What Are Junk Miles
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
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?Originally Posted by nikalas
That's the point... easy miles are not junk as long as they are easy enough.
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.
Last edited by CL; 21-10-2010 at 12:32 PM.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote