Junk Mileage

No comments?

Well, it depends. If the purpose of the run calls for recovery, then no, there isn't such a thing as junk mileage. However, if all you do is a slow stumble, you won't improve aerobically very much, if at all.

Junk mileage might even be a gut wrenching anaerobic workout, if you do it at wrong time, without sound base and too far from the season, or if it isn't race specific.

Junk mileage for me is an unecessary workout that doesn't serve any sound purpose.

If your only concern is health, then even slow plodding is great and certainly worth it.

I really don't believe there is such a thing as junk mileage. For me, anything under 7:30 pace is worth lacing them up and heading out the door for. Of course, the runs really need to be at least 30 minutes, I think, unless you're doing an easy 3-miler strictly for recovery. Otherwise, any run within a certain pace, depending on the individual, and of at least 30 minutes is serving a purpose. Get out and do as much as you can whenever you have time.

No such thing as a junk mile.

nuge wrote:

No such thing as a junk mile.

I disagree. If you do plod along all the time, you're not going to improve much at all.

Just look at all those Gallowalkers out there. They're never going to do more than jog 6 hour marathons. They're miles are all too slow. Junk for any real improvement.

There needs to be another term for this, but I look at it as if you are just doing the mileage to get to some arbitrary goal then it might be junk miles.

If you are running too slow (and I think there is a pace that will not elicit any benefit--a pace too slow), then it could be.

If the miles do not fit into a pre-determined plan.

If you run one day just to keep a streak alive.

Running in circles waiting for the traffic light to change--junk meters...

PepperJack wrote:

I thought there is no such thing as junk mileage. Is there?

Well clearly, Bob Glover thinks so. Others do not.

To the average fatass American there is no such thing as junk miles. They are in such lousy shape that the effort to cover any miles has to be an improvement.

However for elites (say 2:30 or better marathoners)it may be another story. Slow miles during a recovery run are certainly not junk miles. But if your long run consists of 20 miles at 12 minute pace, you probably just wasted 4 hours. It is not fast enough to help improve your aerobic capacity (threshold, whatever), and it's too slow to build capillaries, and you are in such good shape that the calorie burning aspect is meaningless.

There is another dead zone (for those familiar with heart rate training) where the effort is too intense for capillary building, and not intensive enough for aerobic benenfit.

For example:

5 minute miles might benefit you aerobically

7 minute miles might build capillaries

however, 6 minute miles may do neither, and for an elite near peak condition, anything not improving or at least maintaining your fitness could be considered a waste of time.

But for 99 percent of the population there is no such thing as junk miles. Fat America would benefit from any miles.

I disagree. If you do plod along all the time, you're not going to improve much at all.

So what ? If all you do is run quarters on the track, you won't get any good either, but that's not a reason to give up doing speed work.Put it this way -- I figure that if 10 minutes per mile is good enough for Morceli, it's good enough for me. Once I can run faster than him, I'll start worrying about how fast my aerobic mileage is.

Just look at all those Gallowalkers out there. They're never going to do more than jog 6 hour marathons. They're miles are all too slow.

How many miles a week are they doing ? If they were doing 80+, I think they'd be well under 6 hours.

Pretty good post and really touches upon some good ideas.

One thing snow...if you ever get a chance to read about Brad Schlapak (sp?), do so. I seem to recall him running his long runs at 10 min/mile. He won US XC sometime in the 90's. I think he used to do 18 miles on sunday in about 3 hours. He seemed to think that even at that pace it wasn't junk at all.

elflord wrote:

Put it this way -- I figure that if 10 minutes per mile is good enough for Morceli, it's good enough for me. Once I can run faster than him, I'll start worrying about how fast my aerobic mileage is.

do you honestly believe that he really ran that slow? I know it's been printed elsewhere but 10:00 miles are so painfully slow that you may as well walk. I think the 10:00 per mile thing for Morceli is an urban legend of sorts!

elflord wrote:

I disagree. If you do plod along all the time, you're not going to improve much at all.

So what ? If all you do is run quarters on the track, you won't get any good either, but that's not a reason to give up doing speed work.Put it this way -- I figure that if 10 minutes per mile is good enough for Morceli, it's good enough for me. Once I can run faster than him, I'll start worrying about how fast my aerobic mileage is.

Just look at all those Gallowalkers out there. They're never going to do more than jog 6 hour marathons. They're miles are all too slow.

How many miles a week are they doing ? If they were doing 80+, I think they'd be well under 6 hours.

If all you do is quarters, you will improve. Unlike plodding along at a very slow pace over and over where you won't improve.

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.

Pete Houghton wrote:

nuge wrote:

No such thing as a junk mile.

I disagree. If you do plod along all the time, you're not going to improve much at all.

Just look at all those Gallowalkers out there. They're never going to do more than jog 6 hour marathons. They're miles are all too slow. Junk for any real improvement.

Improvement is relative. Most of those people are starting at ground zero. So if you go from sitting on the couch to jogging a 12 min miles that's a big deal,and a rather large improvement.

The number in some texts is 55% VO2max, or, say 60-65% MHR. Intensity below this level is too little to provide capillarization, mitochondria development, and the associated stuff that one does aerobic training for. You probably have to go back to read old works by people like Dudley to see if there is an actual measured level for mitochondria in ST fibers, but it seems to me that 60% MHR is VERY slow.

If all you do is quarters, you will improve.

I can assure anyone that if I traded in my so-called "junk miles" for fast quarters, I would not only not improve, I would regress and possibly be injured. Been there, done that already. I was able to run low 20s for 5k doing fast quarters and 20 miles a week. Doing a similar amount of speed work and 70-80 slow miles a week, I can run 17 low.As "speed kills" points out -- you need to be going extremely slowly not to benefit. Have you tried running below 60% MHR ? Most people would have trouble maintaining that heart rate at any kind of run. 10 minutes per mile will put me over 120bpm.If the Gallowalkers plod along for 80 mile weeks, they still won't improve much. If that's all they did, I'd almost agree. It helps to do some speed work as well. I'd like to see your evidence that running slowly increases risk of injury, because that's not at all consistent with my experience.

Here's my take, for what it's worth.

You HAVE to stay at a certain pace to keep your current fitness level. Say, your marathon pace is 6 per mmile. If you run most of your miles at 10 minute pace, you're going to get slower. Are they junk miles? In my book they are.

Your miles need to be relative to your fitness level. They can be run too slow resulting in a loss of or no fitness gain.

Of course, for Joe Schmoe who is just starting, I doubt if any miles are junk. For someone looking to improve who has a good fitness base, some certainly can be junk.

My definition of junk miles: Any run at x pace that does not at least allow you to maintain your current race pace. For me, anything slower than 2 minutes off of marathon pace is junk.

I would agree to an extent. JUNK MILES, are miles nonetheless, but it is how hard your hear is working which has to do with arterio venus constriction. If you are exhausted and cant run fast relative to the tempo of your goal paces, then what are you to do? Well variety, you can supplement drills, strides, weights, running on grass, beach, instead of ploding along like you have an extra 50lbs attached-at least this maximizes the muscel strength and streghthens your core. Look, if you can't get your heart rate up, then aerobically you are doing nothing to maximize your conditioning. If your normal pace is 7's, then what the hell are you doing going out for a 10 miler doing 10 min miles? It does very little and does not maximize your time. Better off swimming, xtraining, or a mix form of conditioning. At the most there should be only a 1' per mile diffrence, after that it depends on the terrain you are running on. i.e. more difficult the terrain the slower the pace relative to the effort.

Renato's 3:30/1:43 runners will jog for 3hrs at 9min/mi

distance guy wrote:

I really don\\\'t believe there is such a thing as junk mileage. For me, anything under 7:30 pace is worth lacing them up and heading out the door for. Of course, the runs really need to be at least 30 minutes, I think, unless you\\\'re doing an easy 3-miler strictly for recovery. Otherwise, any run within a certain pace, depending on the individual, and of at least 30 minutes is serving a purpose. Get out and do as much as you can whenever you have time.

Perfecto!!! I think this has been the best response.