What is considered "junk mileage"?

Myth.

"Junk miles" is made up term by the mainstream community of runners who did not and now CANNOT compromise their lifestyles to reap the rewards that high mileage brings.

And who can blame them? To admit that your best efforts with regard to your lifestyle in which you are enslaved in will only produce mediocrity at best is to undermine everything that drives you to stay true to the grind. The alternative is to believe in the myth.

In a world where high-mileage in of itself is proven to reap rewards, ALL miles matter. Fast or slow.

malmo wrote:

There is no such thing as junk miles, but there is nothing more common than junk thinking.

Except junk posting.

rekrunner wrote:

It's a myth. There is no such thing.

What doesn't hurt you, makes you stronger.

Not lifting weights doesn't hurt/kill me, therefore not lifting weights makes me stronger.

Would anybody consider junk mileage (if there is such a thing) to be mileage that is much slower than one's typical easy pace?

For example, if someone's easy pace is 730 pace, doing mileage at 10 min pace.

No pain, no gain.

laughingostrich wrote:

Not lifting weights doesn't hurt/kill me, therefore not lifting weights makes me stronger.

Kip Litton's Bib Number wrote:

Would anybody consider junk mileage (if there is such a thing) to be mileage that is much slower than one's typical easy pace?

For example, if someone's easy pace is 730 pace, doing mileage at 10 min pace.

I've read articles and interviews concerning the training of African and Japanese runners, elite runners mind you, that describe runs as slow or nearly as slow.

Junk miles is where you're eating Krispy Kreme along the way (I've had a few of those).

Kip Litton's Bib Number wrote:

Would anybody consider junk mileage (if there is such a thing) to be mileage that is much slower than one's typical easy pace?

For example, if someone's easy pace is 730 pace, doing mileage at 10 min pace.

Not if it's a recovery run used coherently with the rest of their training.

Chris Knight wrote:

Anything in a car.

+1

Those would still be considered recovery miles, and they are perfectly fine to do if that's what works for you.In my opinion, the only type of miles that would qualify close to the term "junk mileage" would be miles run faster than your body needs to run to recovery on your recovery days, which will ultimately lead to a much higher change of injury.The amount of hard work you put into running, properly channeled, is directly in proportion to how well you can perform. The more hard work put into running the better, in whatever means possible, with more mileage being a very promising way of putting in this hard work.Takeaway: LISTEN to your body, and run as much as you can.

Kip Litton's Bib Number wrote:

Would anybody consider junk mileage (if there is such a thing) to be mileage that is much slower than one's typical easy pace?

For example, if someone's easy pace is 730 pace, doing mileage at 10 min pace.

I like the term Daniels uses: "quality junk." These are miles run at the wrong training pace--not hard enough to improve, not easy enough to recover or go long. The miles themselves may be beneficial, but not as much as they could be if training was more thoughtful.

I'm a big believer in running a lot of miles so I'm not trying to be lazy, but I don't count a warm up or cool down as mileage or even some recovery jogs I don't count. It's because it's slogging and its purpose isn't to help you get used to a fast pace or increase your endurance or to increase strength- its purpose is to warm you up. I could be warmed up by jogging a mile but I could also be warmed up with electrical muscle stimulation that you see at physical therapy places. The point is is that that running is only done as a convenient means for a purpose that isn't really to benefit your running and could in theory be replaced so I don't count it. A mile slow grandma jog where people are laughing and talking and joking around is not mileage it is "junk," and likewise if that was carried out for 5 or 10 miles it is still "junk." Mileage are serious runs and every run has a purpose.

that is by far one of the most assine things I have ever read on this website.

come'on stupid wrote:

that is by far one of the most assine things I have ever read on this website.

Whoaaa hold on buddy I don't think I said anything THAT bad.

Just before the thread goes on, let it be known that, from Gebreselassie the greatest distance runner:

"What’s an easy run for you? Can Haile Gebrselassie really run slowly?

Haile: I really can’t just jog. Something in me forces me to run fast. An easy run for me is running 4:30 minutes per kilometer. I can’t do anything slower. Five minutes per kilometer would be just too slow."

That was taken from this link (http://www.takethemagicstep.com/coaching/athletes/interviews/haile-gebrselassie-i-cant-run-slowly/)

I think it's quite clear that, at least FOR HAILE, 5:00 kilometer pace would be junk miles. That's from the king of the marathon himself, so I think that translates to everybody that there is SOME pace that is too slow to not count.

"A junk mile is any recovery mile done too fast"

Paddy the Irishman

He's a badass. I'mmmm goinnn doowwwnnn the RIVER!

for the love of Allah, God, Jesus, Mohammad, and Zoraster just run ppl. Count your miles and do as many as you can without getting injured. Run what feels right and stop worrying about what the watch says.

Junk miles are the miles you do NOT do...

You can add more "quality" miles if you like but the net result is you will be injured. "Junk" miles will help with your endurance while letting you recover from your hard workouts.

come'on stupid wrote:

that is by far one of the most assine things I have ever read on this website.

If you're going to say something like that to someone, especially via that user name, you might try learning how to spell in order to prevent your own rant from being the more asinine one.