Junk miles?

The advocates of heart rate training would say that there are such things as junk miles.

Any couch potato would benefit from any miles at any pace. But I assume you are talking about fit athletes trying to push the envelope. These guys are already in good shape.

The heart rate theory is that short to medium runs at hard effort (say at least 90% of maximum heart rate) help the runner expand aerobic threashhold and get him used to high turnover rates, and that medium to long runs at easy effort (say 40 - 60% maximum heart rate) help him recover, burn fat, build capillarieas and increase mitochondrial density.

Running miles between those 2 zones does nothing for an elite athlete and is a waster of time, ie: junk miles.

For the average Joe there is no such thing as junk miles.

However, for olympic quality athletes it is another story. They already have the body of a greek god and are investing immense amounts of time and effort in their training. They have very little time and energy to waste. At their level every mile not used to improve some aspect of their (already elite) ability is a junk mile.

There is no such thing as junk miles. Even if you walked a few miles every day they would not be junk. They would loosen up your muscles and would be (very easy) aerobic exercise. No form of exercise is "junk," if junk means worthless.

see the previous post

When in doubt (and pain free).....RUN!

Junk: Anything that is useless, that you don't need or want.

Junk miles: Any running that doesn't help develop precisely what you are supposed to develop at that particular time, in a manner that is best for YOU.

So, 8x400 fast could be junk depending on what your goals are, day of week, time of year etc.

Your training should always be geared towards maximizing your development in particular arenas while minimizing injury risk/burnout. Anything that doesn't do this is junk.

For example, most people know that you can improve capillarization and mitochondria density at slow paces for long duration. So if you are running 8 minute miles for 90 minutes and are still at 65% HR and you don't tend to get injured at that pace/duration then that's not a junk workout. Why run at all faster, if capillarization/mitochondria development is your goal for the workout that day?

[quote]watchoo talking about willis wrote:

The heart rate theory is that short to medium runs at hard effort (say at least 90% of maximum heart rate) help the runner expand aerobic threashhold and get him used to high turnover rates, and that medium to long runs at easy effort (say 40 - 60% maximum heart rate) help him recover, burn fat, build capillarieas and increase mitochondrial density.

Running miles between those 2 zones does nothing for an elite athlete and is a waster of time, ie: junk miles.

quote]

So for an athlete w/ a Max HR of 200, the target HRs are 180 (90%) and then 120-80bpm for long and recovery runs. Runs where your HR is HIGHER than 120 would be detrimental, correct? This *is* what HR training advocates (more like 70%) but close enough.

The previous posters have been saying that HR``140 is a waste of time and effort. There is no evidence or basis for this, but I believe that is the point of their posts.

- Said Aouita would run 6-8km 2x day @ 4-430/km on his easy days (630-7mins/mile).

- Dave Scott would NEVER do a long run w/ his HR %%145. He would start walking if he couldn't run slow enough up a hill to keep it below 145.

- My college coach (9x All Am when freshman were not allowed to compete) ran 8min/mile for 10 months when he started coaching - working w/ the JV runners. Nothing faster. Ran 28:50 10k that spring.

The compulsion to run faster than neccessary is just that - a compulsion. There are numerous examples on the elite and not-so-elite level to back this up.

mr. common sense wrote:

if you can run a 30 min 10k a 1450 5k or a 415 or better mile....then anything slower than 6:45 per mile on your long road runs or morning runs is junk miles.....(but, to be honest, I racked up alot of junk miles in my career of 100 to 130 mile weeks....morning 6 miler was always easy....tues/thurs runs were easy....mon/wed/fri or sat were the hard days, intervals on mon...hard 10 miler on wed hills on fri or sat.....If I had to do it over again? Maybe drop the mileage a little bit and increase the speed on my distance runs.

You are, quite simply, wrong. Dropping the mileage and increasing to a somwhat faster, but still slow compared to race pace, aerobic zone does not further stimulate aerobic development. I have a good friend with PR's of 14:14 and 29:50 and he NEVER did and still never does a non-workout distance run faster than 7:00 pace. But his base periods at that time were over 120 a week. You get more aerobic development by putting in more time at a lower aerobic zone than less time at a higher aerobic zone. Now, if going faster doesn't effect your ability to run alot, then sure, faster aerobic is better. But if you speed up :30 a mile at the cost of 30 miles a week, that isn't useful.

One thing I have noticed is alot fo people who say they don't run slower than 7:00 pace on runs are deluding themselves about how fast they run. Do you ever run on trails? How the hell do you know how fast your runs are if you are doing your 2 hour runs on trails that might climbs and descend 1000' in the same run? Do you measure all of your run courses? Are tehre hills where you live? Do you ever do a hard workout so you are just dragging the next day and you still force yourself to run a given pace rather than a given effort?

I will give you an example from a rare measured and timed run I did last week. I moved up my long run to Friday so I could work out again on Sunday and, here in the south it has been damn hot and humid. So I could go in the mid afternoon in the 96 degree heat, I did 16 laps around a wheeled 1500m loop for a total of 24k so I could stay in the shade under the trees and took splits just to see what I really run. I ran the first 1500m at 7:20 pace and that is how I start every run. I I don't feel great, that is where I stay. This day, I felt ok, so I gradually cut down just based on effort. I was a hair under 7:00 pace by the 6th lap and then ran the next several laps going down throught he 6:40's and high 6:30's and this was clearly faster than I do on most easy days. I ran the last lap in 5:00 (5:20 pace). If I am feeling good, rather than do a whole high-end aerobic run, I use that quanta of energy to really run fast at the end of the run rather than run a medium pace the whole run.

Incidentally, my Sunday workout was a 15k on the same loop with the first 8 miles at 5:30 pace (5:09 per lap-conservative in the heat and humidity) and the last 1500m lap in 4:44. If you are running 6:45 pace every day, you should be able to run your tempos at proper tempo effort at 5:00 pace. I have run with guys who pushed me to run too hard on easy days, but then when I suggest we pick up the last few miles if we are feeling good, they think I mean to like 6:00 pace and get dropped running under 5:20 for a few miles. Obviously, if you can't run the last few miles of an easy run :90/mile faster than your easy pace, then your easy is too hard.

Brian wrote:

You are, quite simply, wrong. Dropping the mileage and increasing to a somwhat faster, but still slow compared to race pace, aerobic zone does not further stimulate aerobic development. I have a good friend with PR's of 14:14 and 29:50 and he NEVER did and still never does a non-workout distance run faster than 7:00 pace. But his base periods at that time were over 120 a week. You get more aerobic development by putting in more time at a lower aerobic zone than less time at a higher aerobic zone. Now, if going faster doesn't effect your ability to run alot, then sure, faster aerobic is better. But if you speed up :30 a mile at the cost of 30 miles a week, that isn't useful.

I think most of the people here would say run more, but not slowly. If you really need to go slow, so be it. But slow for the sake of slow is pointless. If you're doing 13 workouts(runs) a week, there will probably be one easy easy run, not seven to ten.

Hector Matos wrote:

mr. common sense wrote:

if you can run a 30 min 10k a 1450 5k or a 415 or better mile....then anything slower than 6:45 per mile on your long road runs or morning runs is junk miles.

BULLSHIT!!

Yep. I belive Pete Magill's writings about his own training would echo this response.

Junk miles are any miles that you are doing simply to pad your log and that actually hurt you. If you are trying to run a 31:00 10k, yet you're running too many miles to allow this (due to fatigue) then those extra miles are junk. If MORE is better then why aren't the top guys running 200 miles a week? Or 250 miles a week... that is MORE and therefore better!? No junk right!?

"Junk" has to do with the law of diminishing returns which absolutely exists.

yayayaya wrote:

There is no such thing as junk miles. Even if you walked a few miles every day they would not be junk. They would loosen up your muscles and would be (very easy) aerobic exercise. No form of exercise is "junk," if junk means worthless.

So a 20 mile hard run before attempting a 5k PR isn't junk?