My definition of junk miles: Any run at x pace that does not at least allow you to maintain your current race pace.
If I were to stop doing speed work, I would almost certainly slow down, unless I ran my base mileage very hard. Does that mean that all of my running except for the 6 miles or so of reps I do each week is "junk" ?
It's not that simple. An easy training run can serve a useful purpose, even if that training run alone is not sufficient to maintain current fitness.
Pete Houghton wrote:
If the Gallowalkers plod along for 80 mile weeks, they still won't improve much. They'll improve some, but not much and hardly enough to justify plodding along for that amount of time. Besides, they'll never make it that far because all that pounding will wear them out and break them down with injury.
By the standards of this board, I'm terribly slow. However, I still run literally twice as fast as these people who are being disparaged (although I'm absolutely sure no one posting on this thread, besides myself, actually knows any of these people who you look down on).
After returning from an injury about two years ago, I did a 10-miler in about 1:13. (You think I suck? Tell me something I don't know.) Then I went back and re-read some Lydiard stuff and read John Molvar's page for the first time, and decided I was going to get to 100 miles/week no matter how slow I had to run. I almost got there, and damn did I run slow. Probably not a single mile under 9:00. At the end of this 8-week experiment I ran a half in 1:29 in 20-30 mph winds. Slow-ass miles, a lot of 'em, and I got considerably faster.
Now, of course you wouldn't do the long slow slog forever. But it's a first step. And it works. Over the last few weeks I've added in an extra 15 mi/wk with the wife, who is a great swimmer and a pretty good biker but a runner who gets to the finish line OK. They are very slow miles and fit any definition of "junk" and at first glance only appear to pad the milage from 75 to 90. But after the first week or two, I felt SO much stronger. Coincidence? Maybe. But they definitely didn't do me any harm.
elflord wrote:
My definition of junk miles: Any run at x pace that does not at least allow you to maintain your current race pace.
If I were to stop doing speed work, I would almost certainly slow down, unless I ran my base mileage very hard. Does that mean that all of my running except for the 6 miles or so of reps I do each week is "junk" ?
It's not that simple. An easy training run can serve a useful purpose, even if that training run alone is not sufficient to maintain current fitness.
You start with a faulty premise. You assume those other miles aren't helpful. They are because you run them at x pace that keeps you at least at your current fitness level. So, they aren't junk. Start running them slower and you will get slower. Stop running your reps and you'll get slower. If the running you're doing causes you to slow down, it's junk miles. Unless your goal is to run to have fun or fitness, then they aren't. But, if your goal is to run faster, they are certainly junk.
And, it IS that simple. No need to make it harder.
In my opinion, any miles below the effort of recovery run (so that means super-super easy) are junk miles, if they are run for the purpose of improving your race times.
To the guy, who argued with the ledgend of Moreceli's 10min/m 10 milers- he didn't time them, nor measured the routes, so he just assumed he was jogging 10min/mile pace. For a guy at his level, even 7min/mile feels like 10+min/mile for a mere mortal. That's just my explanation of the genesis of this urban legend.
Junk mileage = running without any physiological or pscyhological benefit. Trying to give an exact definition of what that is will prove to be an elusive, if not impossible task because: 1) it's completely relative to the individual 2) I personally believe all activity is good 3) the goal of training must be considered.
1) A 13:30 guy runs 5 miles at 8:00 pace to recover perhaps (a la Kenyan style), but kills 10 x 400 in 60. So he run slow, it's still not wasted because it allowed him to recover faster and more completely in order to run the 400 workout. Now, a guy who runs 13:30 for 2 miles running 8:00 for 5 miles might be fatiguing himself when an off-day or a swim would do more for him that "toughing" it out on the roads. That would be junk to me. It does more harm than good.
2) Like Lydiard said, any activity that gets the heart rate up is good. But, he also said, "the secret to running well is to stay fresh". If you're running and it's not helping you either a) get stronger/faster/fitter or b) recover, it's not doing anything towards building your running. That's junk. So long as it has a purpose and it's actually accomplishing that purpose...go for it.
3) Obvious one here: if you are a health runner, 15 miles a day is not necessary. If you simply enjoy it, more power to you, but stay healthy. However, if you are making a living from the sport (a slim majority of the people who run) you look at workouts much differently than rec or aspiring runners. For you, running is work. No matter how much you love it....it's how you pay the bills. So, you're less likely to do something stupid, outlandish or just for fun. How many stock brokers trade just because they like trading or doctors slice people open just because they like slicing people open? Not many. When you go from fun to for real, it becomes a whole new beast. You take less thoughtless risks and weigh your options much more deliberately.
I do agree that there is such a thing a junk mileage. Coe / Martin would argue that anything below 55% VO2 max pace is useless physiologically. There MUST be a line somewhere, or else walking would be "good training" for runners.
55% pace is very, very easy though. I think we all have a pace that feels right, and any slower = putting on the brakes and feeling uncomfortable formwise.
what you say "for a guy at his level, even 7min/mile feels like 10+min/mile for a mere mortal" makes some sense, but would he really misjudge a distance of 10 miles for 14 miles?
Skuj wrote:
I do agree that there is such a thing a junk mileage. Coe / Martin would argue that anything below 55% VO2 max pace is useless physiologically. There MUST be a line somewhere, or else walking would be "good training" for runners.
55% pace is very, very easy though. I think we all have a pace that feels right, and any slower = putting on the brakes and feeling uncomfortable formwise.
Well, Kenyans take lots of long walks, as did the Finns of old. Didn't seem to do them much harm.