Discussion: Junk miles?

I've heard and read the phrase "junk miles" when referring to training. What are these, and how can I avoid them?

Google it if you want an in depth definition. In my opinion, junk miles are relative to the athlete. Basically, it is a term for someone who runs at such a pace that doesn't result in cardiovascular gains. Someone who is new to running may not run junk miles; because just getting out the door and moving is more than they did before, no matter how slow they run. I believe that if you know your body, and listen to it, then you cannot run junk miles...unless it becomes stale to you. That's when you should take up another sport such as orienteering.

I'm very much with Helen on this. Base miles can be run at any pace that feels comfortable and the more (miles, not speed) the better as long as you don't increase your mileage too quickly. In fact, many coaches believe the danger with base miles is running them too fast, not too slow. Junk miles (or to use Daniels' phrase "quality junk") is running that is too easy to accomplish the adaptations desired, but too hard for you to do a real quality workout the next day. The best way to avoid this is to run a 3K time trial to determine your VO2max and then use the paces page to determine the appropriate pace for whatever training you're doing. Daniels is widely regarded as the definitive work on this subject, but just about any other running book (that isn't written by someone promoting an offbeat theory) will give you the same set of training paces.

Junk miles is what lazy people call training

Sarcasm aside, there's something to that. Running the correct pace for all your workouts requires a lot of discipline. Particularly intervals where 3-4 seconds /400m slow OR fast significantly decreases the value of the workout.

My high school track coach used to use the term "junk miles" to refer to additional distance training, e.g. a morning run or a long, after-intervals cool down. He regarded additional mileage as a desirable thing. On the other hand, his expectations of high school runners were unreasonable and led to injuries, burnout, and sub-optimal performance in some of our athletes.

Thanks for all the tips. The Jack Daniels site was worthwhile, though I found myself on the wrong Jack Daniels site and was excited to see whiskey has its place in running! More seriously, I'd seen it before but had forgotten about it, and it was a good reminder. Now it's time to give up junk miles along with junk food.

Not sure what junk means, but in defence of what's being described...
Slow runs have a role in general conditioning, you could do other stuff, or even have an active job instead. Personally, I prefer running, and I've found if I don't do plenty of this I just put on weight.

What Helen describes is what most runners do most of the time, and no wonder. It's by far the most enjoyable training, running at a decent pace for a decent time. I highly recommend it ... unless you want to improve your ability to race.

As that nice Mr Zatopek said: Why should I practice running slow? I already know how to run slow. I want to learn to run fast.

My opinion is when you use intensity 1 or 3 on your training log: those are junk miles. =>

Either too slow for any adequate training to be done, or too moderatelly fast that doesnt count as interval, but enough to make you tired the next day, and not be able to fullfill 100% that day. Junk miles can also be if you have a ton of long runs but no meat on your training logs such as races, and intervals.

Personally, if you do less than 2-3 intervals per week, you´re wasting your time.

so no low intensity training is worthwhile? Tell that to every endurance athlete who ever lived.

what? i didnt say intensity 2 was bad. they are actually a major part of the training. probably from 50-80% of training.

then how is it junk training? no miles are junk miles in the winter. In summer I agree any training which tires from intervals isnt good. 3 intervals sessions is a bit much at this time of year.

http://www.fitnesssports.com/lyd_clinic_guide/Arth...

this is worth taking time to look through

seems interesting. i´ll read through it.

you can also do 2 intervals a week, perhaps different types (as much as it sucks, it´s what works). but yes, i fear the winter as well. when the snow comes, i dont know what to do...

My opinion is when you use intensity 1 or 3 on your training log: those are junk miles.

Why would you define your AP intensities such that 2/5s of them are useless? That's dumb.

as always are there a lot of opinions and in the end everybody has to find out what works best for on self. i did research on this 4x4min ints hel vino talked about. the athletes did 15 interval sessions in 10 days and i tell you they improved like rockets. the thing is you cant do it the whole year. so building up stamina over the whole "winterperiod" is still a must. but i think this interval thing is a really really good way for tapering. if you rest enough afterwards. min a week.

but thats just my experience or results i measured...

its not dumb. there is some truth to that.

Perhaps for *you*, but I choose to define my intensities such that each one actually means something useful.

im sure thats very useful...

btw Tom, looked at the Lydiard document. a ton of good stuff. will certainly try to incorporate it in my training.

If your body receives / undergoes no adaptation from a workout then that is junk running - effort that the body will not reward with supercompensation in exercise science lingo.
An unfit person doing a long slow run will benefit because they are building up endurance first - but a very fit person doing a leisurely 5km or 10km at very easy pace is doing junk running. Their body will get nothing from it. Some might term such a workout 'active recovery'. Really, they'd be better off working at mugh higher intensities and recovering via a long slow walk, wade in a pool or easy bike ride along with some yoga / stretching.
Run 5km 3x a week for 3 months at below lactate threshold and I'll tell you what will happen to your body - you will lose maybe 1kg (because you're burning mainly oxygen) and become efficient at running 5km. Nothing more. That is now junk running.

thats silly, when you run at a steady pace you are improving fat burning ability (important for a 90 min long race) as well as running economy. Why do you think top runners are doing 120+miles a week rather than 40miles all at 10k pace and under. Both aerobic and anaerobic training are necassary and if you disagree you are wrong.

Hey - let's agree to stop with the absolutes - ok?

"Nothing more" probably isn't completely accurate, and "you are wrong" might not be completely true as well...

A better concept for "junk miles" might be - not as good a use of your training time and energy as other workouts.

If workout A gets you speed buffs, workout B gets you endurance buffs, and workout C gets you toned for a race, spending an hour running easily might not be nearly as significant as any of the others...

Especially if doing so means that you're not ready for workout A, B, or C in the very near future.

It doesn't mean that it's worthless - just not worth as much;-)

Who knows though - spending a nice morning running in an enjoyable location might just be what your brain needs _that day_ to set things back in order so that the rest of the training schedule goes according to plan.

The concept is to think about the miles that you put in and spend your time (and energy) wisely.

but the point isnt that one is more useful than the other, but that only a fool would completly rule out all aerobic training as junk and do only intervals in the same way as no one would only do long slow runs all year round. The idea is that you do both, as both types of training are necassary and have different purposes.

Tom, he wasn't disagreeing with you, he was just critiquing the (somewhat standoffish) way that you were presenting your argument.

Tom mate, your tender years give a partial excuse for the bluntness of your posts but look back in ten years time and a lot of the knowledge you accept as fact now will be refined and altered as research continues. It is not so black and white - and name calling belittles you far more than any useful effect the rest of your post has on the discussion!

um ok, train however you want, I give up

if a session lacks a clear pre-defined purpose to help you achieve your goal then it is junk, no matter how fast/slow. There's no point stepping out the door if you can't explain why.

thats entirely true, but there is nothing wrong with the explanation being a long easy run to build capillaries, improve economy and all the other benefits of long slow distance. Its no new thing that you need both aerobic and anaerobic training, why else did Lydiard have Snell, the best 800m runner in the owrld at the time doing 100mile weeks for most of the year rather than intervals everyday.

Doing the same of anything every day is a rather poor strategy for improvement. Might earn you an overuse injury, though. I don't think anyone was suggesting such a program.

However, just because you don't do something everyday, doesn't mean it's not extremely valuable. I don't think you'll find too many successful coaches trying to discredit base mileage. The "train smarter" philosophy (running only "quality" workouts) is more a reaction to the fact that there are some people who really have very little time to train. If that's the case, kicking out a lot of the base mileage is probably the way to go, but you'll certainly not threaten the leaders in any race over 4 minutes long.

Junk miles, on the other hand, are a workout that doesn't add a lot of value no matter how it's put into a program. As has been sufficiently discussed, these are usually runs that are too hard to be recovery, but too soft to force adaptations. There is also the possibility of running so slowly that you're body isn't stressed at all and therefore won't adapt. Unless it's a recovery run, this would also fall into the category of "junk", but I don't know anybody who does that on a regular basis.

And, since you brought him up, the esteemed Mr. Snell attended an A-meet I directed a few years back and I had the good pleasure of having a disussion with him on this very subject. If you were to emulate his manners and tone as well as his training, I think you'd find yourself much richer for it.

Nice guys finish last...

It's hard to bite ones lip when people consistently come up with utter rubbish on here

Oh come on, we're not the only ones... there's plenty of rubbish to go around.

True... my training for one

Oh I see, now it's not Americans, it's "people". How generous. ;-)

Come on Guys its simple.

What did the Flying Finns, the New Zealand Milers, the Brits in the 80s and the East Africans all have in common?

a) they trained their nuts off doing MASSIVE mileages AS WELL AS lots of hard Intervals, oh and they all beat the Yanks. Brendan Foster never ran slower than 5:30 per mile and did 140 miles a week but Lasse Viiren did his mileage at 7 mins per mile for christ sake, Prefontaine didnt stand a chance. This is all pretty simple and it shouldnt take some shamelessly arrogant kid no one has heard of yet for you to understand it.

Choose to start young.
Choose to not fear burnout and junk miles.
Choose to ignore Vo2 Max and Lactate thresholds.
Choose to leave the HRM at home.
Choose to put down Runners World.
Choose to throw away the motion control shoes.
Choose to Run.

You never know you might enjoy it. Theres a whole world out there. Forget your fears and go see it all.

Cheese over,peace out kids.

Okay, I'm an American, so I may be too slow to get this, but I think most people agree with you. More or less. You can probably unknot your panties now.

I like my own panties tight, really tight.

someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed? Go and run, the endorphins will do you good :) (just kidding dont get even more offended).

Who's he talking to?

I don't know, but I really wish the image of Mr. Carr's panties hadn't been brought into this. I might have to go run some junk miles to get it out of my head.

I'm not sure, either.

I do know that if I didn't know that Mrs. Carr also reads AP, I might be inclined to admit that the image of Mr. Carr's panties is not entirely unpleasant. But I won't, because she does, and that's just dangerous.

Tom R i agree with you 100%

Hey! I thought we agreed that what goes on at TJOC stays at TJOC! Now I need to go drive my car into a bush, a fire hydrant and a tree.

Is that car-O or Carr-O?

Nixon: Nice guys finish last...
Trite as ever, and particualrly inappropriate when discussing US M70 champion Peter Snell...

It is interesting to read Tom's attitude. It's like he's paid no attention to all the ideas prevalent around British distance running in the last ten years.
(during which time precisely no national mens junior or senior records got set)

I adamantly disagree with Tom, and since clearly no amicable resolution can be reached through discussion, I suggest an alternative method: pistols at dawn.

fair enough if you disagree with me, but I would like to know why, and what you feel is the optimal way to train.

I don't actually have much of an opinion (and certainly don't care to discuss it here); I was commenting on the tone of basically the entire thread.

ok

@ Tom R: "um ok, train however you want, I give up"

You've got a funny way of giving up...

"some shamelessly arrogant kid no one has heard of yet" Agreed on that one

"Choose to not fear burnout and junk miles" - Not an option for someone who has been injured every time in the last 15 years they have tried to progress past 60km/week running :)

Seriously though... re-read the thread. I could only find one person who suggested that all low intensity workouts were a waste of time for fit people. I think you missed the point that just about everyone agreed on, which was that "junk miles" are neither high intensity or long slow distance, they are those in between sessions that aren't the best way to achieve anything (a staple of the triathletes I tried training with at one point).
... so basically you're not really disagreeing with anyone, just being rude and making a lot of noise telling most people on the thread what they already know

Nothing in this thread strikes me as especially rude or cheeky in the context of this forum.

Oh yeah? We can change that, j-man. You and me. Let's go. You first.

i was slightly racist at one point though

OK, how's this?--you are too much of a lady to do anything like that! :)

Tom R - your science is from the 1950s. Running at a steady (ie sub lactate threshold) pace does not improve your fat-burning ability much at all. Running economy, yes.
Perhaps you have heard of the saying "Fats can only burn in a carbohydrate flame."
At a steady pace or LSD (long slow duration) you are burning mainly oxygen - that's why it's called aerobic exercise.
To burn fat you have to also burn carbs. Sure, LSD running burns some carbs but high intensity interval training burns a much higher percentage of carbs, a much higher number of carbs and thus more fat in total than a LSD workout.
Check with any exercise scientist.
If you are pretty fit already then one LSD workout a week is enough - spend the rest of your time doing some resistance training and intervals.
Why anyone would want to run 140 miles a week?
All the work the Finns did in the 50s was superior to their rivals, that's why they achieved. Is anyone using such a program now at international level? I doubt it.
Intensity is always more important than volume.

"fly on the wall", although there has been some documents released that theyve figured out that for people wanting to lose weight should do more "interval type" excersize rather than long walks, because it burns fat better (like how you described with fats can only burn in a carbohydrate flame), the strain you put on your body to only so high intensity workouts would be too much. Perhaps people with little spare time, and only have 4-6 hours to train per week would choose high-intensity.

Personally i like a ton of intervals/high intensity training ranging from 3-4 per week, but i feel tired before my rest day. I think Tom R knows what he is talking about when he says that both high and low intensity trainings compliment each other.

Mat - I said in my first post that untrained people should do LSD to build a base of aerobic fitness before starting on intervals. They will then have running economy and a platform from which to start to make real performance gains. How on earth is anyone, already in a reasonably fit aerobic state, going to improve by simply doing the same volume and intensity week in, week out?
If you're having trouble bettering your PB for 5km, don't just try running 5km faster - get to the gym and do some leg-strengthening exercises, do some hill runs and some intervals.
Without adaptation there is no gain.
And rest is crucial - I presume you are a reasonable athlete so in your case I'd be doing one LSD a week to maintain some endurance, plus two interval sessions.
Be wary of overtraining - the number one cause of deteriorating performance. If in doubt, have a rest day instead of a work day - it'll keep you mentally and physically fresher.

Why anyone would want to run 140 miles a week?

Because they want to win?

to fly: I guess you might be right on that one.

Nixon, you can win by doing 40 miles a week - you just have to shift your focus from volume to intensity, ensure enough rest and do some strength work. And include variety in your program.

you can win by doing 40 miles a week

Care to back that up with an example of an elite distance runner who does only 40 miles a week? For every one you produce, I'll produce 10 who do 80-120.

40 miles per weekend

well, if you're doing marathons then that's another thing. I'm talking about general fitness as relates to normal people or those who play sport. Obviously anyone doing more than 10k several times a week is clearly short of friends!!

Hang on, your previous post said you can win off 40 miles... so are you talking about winning or are you talking about general fitness???

Top 800/1500m runners train double that in winter

Assuming we're still talking about people who can "win", 80 miles a week should only take around 10 hours. Hardly excessive training.

I agree with Nixon 100%!!

hmm...

I'm more concerned with trademark infringement...

Tell me about it - it's an epidemic!

http://www.attackpoint.org/log.jsp/user_4406

yeah

It's all relative depending on your age, fitness level, strength, what you're training purpose is etc.....

Individuality matters otherwise we could do the exact same workout and all win every race....hmmm...back to those "junk miles."