Assuming its the day after a hard workout (or evening after a morning workout double), absolutely not.
"What is the purpose of this run?" The purpose of easy runs is, yeah, to build your cardiovascular & respiratory fitness, specifically to develop capillaries.
But in training block? The goal is to recovery. Get blood flowing back to those muscles. Frankly, in a hard training block, you can't go slow enough.
For trained athletes >50% VO2max of intensity is needed to call it a training. So theoretical this is the lower limit and below that, no training effect (or very little).
However, in practice, for over 99% of all runners, even if they run very slow, it is above 50% VO2max. So you can consider any running mile a training mile or training duration.
Typically, what hr %ge is 50% of VO2max?
50%VO2max is about 60%HRmax. (not to mix up with HRR- heart rate reserve, which should be above 45%HRR )
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
depends on the level of training you're at. I personally think Nico Young regularly doing miles at 9:10 pace would be junk miles. But if you are someone with a 9-5 just trying to get through your local half marathon, nah, no junk miles
Wouldn't that be what you want, though? Don't you want to accustom your slow twitch to fat oxidizing while running rather than burning through your limited glycogen? I'm not sure why he'd think that's a problem.
As I understand it, fat is a much less efficient fuel source than glycogen. You can run much farther using it than you can go using primarily glycogen but you can't run as fast. So if you're running ultras you'd want to use fat but in a marathon and down you'd want to stretch out your time using glycogen for as long as possible. Again, that's how I understand it.
Interesting . I have always understood it to be the opposite of this. One of the purposes of easy running is to maximise the slow twitch muscles ability to use fat for fuel. This means that a runner can go longer before depleting glycogen, and needs less exogenous carbs.
As I understand it, fat is a much less efficient fuel source than glycogen. You can run much farther using it than you can go using primarily glycogen but you can't run as fast. So if you're running ultras you'd want to use fat but in a marathon and down you'd want to stretch out your time using glycogen for as long as possible. Again, that's how I understand it.
Interesting . I have always understood it to be the opposite of this. One of the purposes of easy running is to maximise the slow twitch muscles ability to use fat for fuel. This means that a runner can go longer before depleting glycogen, and needs less exogenous carbs.
Once more, this is how I understand this stuff and I make NO claim to have any kind of expertise here. But here goes. I believe the deal is that if you're going to be using glycogen as your primary running fuel you'll exhaust what was stored in your muscles after about two hours. This is supposed to be why marathon runners hit the wall late in races. They're out of glycogen and need to switch over to using fat, which is not as efficient an energy source but is in much greater supply than glycogen. You can't run as fast once the glycogen is gone so if you're running an ultra or are going to take much longer than two hours for your marathon it will go better if your body becomes more efficient at burning fat.
But when Peter and I were talking about this we were talking about fairly high levels of performance, e.g..marathoners who were maybe a ways past twenty miles when the glycogen gave out and were able to use those now converted fast twitch fibres. Our talk was more about how to avoid using fat as fuel in long races than how best to use it.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Reason provided:
fix typo
The days you run when you actually should rest are junk. If you truly run easy on that day, it’s less junk but still junk. There is a optimal amount of mileage and any miles beyond that are junk.
I have no expertise on running physiology, only personal experience. My guess is that Lydiard's original group doing 100 miles per week plus supplemental extra jogging were always in a state of some glycogen depletion.
I remember reading that Peter Snell, in later years, said he wouldn't change anything from the original program, except doing 200m strides once a week in the base building phase.
Lydiard was asked about this and he said, "He's guessing". Lydiard tried everything out on himself before giving it to his runners.
I have no expertise on running physiology, only personal experience. My guess is that Lydiard's original group doing 100 miles per week plus supplemental extra jogging were always in a state of some glycogen depletion.
I remember reading that Peter Snell, in later years, said he wouldn't change anything from the original program, except doing 200m strides once a week in the base building phase.
Lydiard was asked about this and he said, "He's guessing". Lydiard tried everything out on himself before giving it to his runners.
I remember both of those comments. You may have seen them in things I wrote for Marathon and Beyond, Runner's World Daily, or something I posted here ages ago when we had the "Lydard Wars." Or not. Arthur was usually pretty annoyed when people suggested adding any kinds of reps to his base phase. And you might remember that he and Peter had a falling out in 1963. They patched it up but there was still tension between them to the end.
I had never met Peter Snell, but knew people who went for a run with him in Stanley Park when he raced in Vancouver, 1965. They said he had calf muscles that looked like grapefruits.
I met Lydiard a couple of times, just briefly. He had written out some training schedules for me.There was no track coach at my highschool.The training worked well, 2.27 at Seattle Marathon at 18 yrs old. College training and racing wrecked me after my first year. It took a long time to rebuild my fitness.
In the nineties the term was used for easy running, because the coaches preferred "quality work". Hence the decline of American distance running in that era.
I had never met Peter Snell, but knew people who went for a run with him in Stanley Park when he raced in Vancouver, 1965. They said he had calf muscles that looked like grapefruits.
I met Lydiard a couple of times, just briefly. He had written out some training schedules for me.There was no track coach at my highschool.The training worked well, 2.27 at Seattle Marathon at 18 yrs old. College training and racing wrecked me after my first year. It took a long time to rebuild my fitness.
tell us you're gerry lindgen without telling us you're gerry lindgren
I had never met Peter Snell, but knew people who went for a run with him in Stanley Park when he raced in Vancouver, 1965. They said he had calf muscles that looked like grapefruits.
I met Lydiard a couple of times, just briefly. He had written out some training schedules for me.There was no track coach at my highschool.The training worked well, 2.27 at Seattle Marathon at 18 yrs old. College training and racing wrecked me after my first year. It took a long time to rebuild my fitness.
tell us you're gerry lindgen without telling us you're gerry lindgren
It's almost certain that Gerry and Peter would have met. They were just in too many meets together for that not to have happened. And Gerry' was much older than eighteen when he ran his 2:27 marathon. My money is on "someone other than Gerry" here.
No, not Gerry Lindgren, not even close to that talent. I have been lucky to run 5 miles with Kenny Moore in 1979 and met Steve Jones at a pub in Galway 2005.
It depends on what your purpose for running is. If you're just Forrest Gumping it, there's very little junk and "you just feel like running."
But if you're working towards any type of goal there certainly are junk miles; including those miles that aren't run with any purpose behind them or those that are just excessive and putting unnecessary stress and wear & tear on your body.
Rest in underrated.
sounds like coach vigil's theory of over-training vs under-recovered.