Junk Training

bryangiggsy

Interested in getting some opinions on the amount of junk training that is done by athletes out there. Have done my fair share of it over the years but as i get more wise in my years i would hazard a guess that 70% or more of the training done out there is junk miles. Whether goiing for the social club spin or attending that sportif (that has absolutely no correlation to tri) ..it all adds up. What do people think?

peter kern

bryangiggsy wrote: »

Interested in getting some opinions on the amount of junk training that is done by athletes out there. Have done my fair share of it over the years but as i get more wise in my years i would hazard a guess that 70% or more of the training done out there is junk miles. Whether goiing for the social club spin or attending that sportif (that has absolutely no correlation to tri) ..it all adds up. What do people think?

what are junk miles the 8 x 1 k reps that have you injured for 2 weeks ...
the 8x1 k after a stressful day at work that push you over the edge

or an easy social spin the day after an 8x1 k interval followed by a purposefull quality session the next day....

saying that a club spin or an sportive is junk miles is wrong as it can be perfect training as much as ****e training.

bryangiggsy

peter kern wrote: »

what are junk miles the 8 x 1 k reps that have you injured for 2 weeks ...
the 8x1 k after a stressful day at work that push you over the edge

or an easy social spin the day after an 8x1 k interval followed by a purposefull quality session the next day....

saying that a club spin or an sportive is junk miles is wrong as it can be perfect training as much as ****e training.

If you do a training session too hard then that session becomes junk no?
Then u fall into the trap . I went too hard yesterday so will go very easy today in the club spin. Going easy in a club spin is not possible since you go at the pace of the group not your pace. Another junk session

shansey

I never fully understood junk miles.. recently read that article on the whole 80/20 thing..

What i took from it was that if youre not in your hard/interval session then you should be going at an easy pace..

Is it that junk miles are neither easy or hard?

Oryx

Junk miles are wasted miles, for whatever reason. Training when tired, at someone elses pace, or at the wrong effort level. I have done many many junk miles in my time.

bryangiggsy

shansey wrote: »

I never fully understood junk miles.. recently read that article on the whole 80/20 thing..

What i took from it was that if youre not in your hard/interval session then you should be going at an easy pace..

Is it that junk miles are neither easy or hard?

I would define junk miles as training in a zone that adds no value to the training plan as a whole

tunney

One mans junk miles are another mans not-junk miles.

Also there is a tendency by some, not saying the OP is, to dismiss the work done by others as junk if (a) its not understood (b) the person cannot replicate the volume.

What is junk? A very very difficult question and to be honest Peter answered it perfectly in the first reply.

tunney

bryangiggsy wrote: »

I would define junk miles as training in a zone that adds no value to the training plan as a whole

Unless you know the tune that someone hears how can you tell if they are dancing out of step?

Tom__jnr2

Every training should have some purpose. I go tonight for 60min easy run. It is the junk miles session. Perhaps it is... but it is also beween tempo runs yesterday and tomorrow. So the goal od this run is to recover.

bryangiggsy

tunney wrote: »

Unless you know the tune that someone hears how can you tell if they are dancing out of step?

You can't. Was merely comparing my experience in training as a mid level age grouper and applying as a whole.

bryangiggsy

Tom__jnr2 wrote: »

Every training should have some purpose. I go tonight for 60min easy run. It is the junk miles session. Perhaps it is... but it is also beween tempo runs yesterday and tomorrow. So the goal od this run is to recover.

right if its recovery run and your tempo pace is 4.30 per km lets say...... there is a difference between a recovery run at 5.00 per km and 5.15 per km

Oryx

I think the main problem for agers is that we dont know what our own personal junk miles are. Its a very difficult thing to quantify. But I guarantee if you are a slave to a generic plan, you are doing a lot of junk.

sconhome

To me junk mile were training sessions that had no clear goal or purpose other than clocking up sessions.

Depends on your goals as most of what I do would be junk to triathlon but integral to what I love doing now (not saying I don't do structure, mostly I don't though)

Tom__jnr2

bryangiggsy wrote: »

right if its recovery run and your tempo pace is 4.30 per km lets say...... there is a difference between a recovery run at 5.00 per km and 5.15 per km

IF your tempo runs are 4.30 and easy around 5.00 it means that you got wrong and both sessions are "junk miles".
It is sub 3.20 (long tempo) and 5.00 (easy runs) for me.

tunney

Tom__jnr2 wrote: »

IF your tempo runs are 4.30 and easy around 5.00 it means that you got wrong and both sessions are "junk miles".
It is sub 3.20 (long tempo) and 5.00 (easy runs) for me.

If your long tempo are 3.20 and your easy is 5.00 then at least one of those sessions are "junk miles"

Tom__jnr2

tunney wrote: »

If your long tempo are 3.20 and your easy is 5.00 then at least one of those sessions are "junk miles"

Not if easy run is done to recover. Otherwise could not agree more.

pgibbo

I'd have no issue with doing run junk miles if I could run 3:20 pace for a long tempo :pac:

It's not all about the physical either folks. Sometimes you just go and run/bike with friends or colleagues because it's a beautiful sunny day or you fancy training with company for a change. Some might consider it junk miles but if it's a mental break or a refreshing change then there's a benefit to be had.

bryangiggsy

Tom__jnr2 wrote: »

IF your tempo runs are 4.30 and easy around 5.00 it means that you got wrong and both sessions are "junk miles".
It is sub 3.20 (long tempo) and 5.00 (easy runs) for me.

U left out in your opinion but thanks for being a c..k

tunney

bryangiggsy wrote: »

U left out in your opinion but thanks for being a c..k

He may be a c..k but you posted numbers, you started the discussion.
If you tempo pace is 4:30 and your easy is 5:00

A few possibilities:

• your easy is being done far far too hard
• your tempo is being done far far too easy
• you lost a leg in nam

You started the thread with a none too subtle dig at other peoples training, you cannot expect to not get responses when the numbers you post don't add up.

peter kern

bryangiggsy wrote: »

If you do a training session too hard then that session becomes junk no?
Then u fall into the trap . I went too hard yesterday so will go very easy today in the club spin. Going easy in a club spin is not possible since you go at the pace of the group not your pace. Another junk session

that very much depends on the level of the group if you go out with beginners it could be a perfect session for you and they would learn from you ( win win )
if you go with the fast guys than you could be right.( at the same time sometimes whats bad for you body can be good for your mind and to learn to suffer is a good thing to in moderation)

and if it was to become a junksession you leave the group simples. no shame to get dropped in training if you beat them in the race.

bryangiggsy

tunney wrote: »

He may be a c..k but you posted numbers, you started the discussion.
If you tempo pace is 4:30 and your easy is 5:00

A few possibilities:

• your easy is being done far far too hard
• your tempo is being done far far too easy
• you lost a leg in nam

You started the thread with a none too subtle dig at other peoples training, you cannot expect to not get responses when the numbers you post don't add up.

U left out in your opinion too Dave. Why would I come on here and have a subtle dig about other peoples training? You don't know me very well if you think that.

peter kern

bryangiggsy wrote: »

I would define junk miles as training in a zone that adds no value to the training plan as a whole

ok so you are sayin that each zone only trains one thing ...
and they have no cross over .
i would suggest rather than zones you worry much more aobut your stress level sleeping times etc.

tunney

bryangiggsy wrote: »

U left out in your opinion too Dave. Why would I come on here and have a subtle dig about other peoples training? You don't know me very well if you think that.

bryangiggsy wrote: »

i would hazard a guess that 70% or more of the training done out there is junk miles. Whether goiing for the social club spin or attending that sportif (that has absolutely no correlation to tri) ..it all adds up. What do people think?

That is a dig - not at anyone in particular.

I didn't put in "in my opinion" because its not an opinion. By any accepted definition of pace having easy and temp so close........

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

ok so you are sayin that each zone only trains one thing ...
and they have no cross over .
i would suggest rather than zones you worry much more aobut your stress level sleeping times etc.

What Peter is getting at here.

pgibbo

Let's keep things on topic folks and no personal digs please.

bryangiggsy

tunney wrote: »

That is a dig - not at anyone in particular. but its a post that to some would scream "you are wasting your time". That's a dig.

As for "in my opinion" this isn't the court in "The Good Wife" and you're not Alicia Florec. I didn't put in "in my opinion" because its not an opinion. By any accepted definition of pace having easy and temp so close is bull.

I let my coach know 'THE GREAT TUNNEY' has spoken and demand my plan be changed.:rolleyes:

peter kern

bryangiggsy wrote: »

right if its recovery run and your tempo pace is 4.30 per km lets say...... there is a difference between a recovery run at 5.00 per km and 5.15 per km

not really again you seem to think that you need to do something at an exact intesity to do it right
there is more a difference runing 30 min 60 min and 90 min ;-)
so 30 min at 5 min fine and likely better than 60 min at 5.15 if as pure recovery run .
but nothing that would be junk miles. as again the time you sleep and the stress you have would have an higher impact than going 5 or 5.15 pace.

tunney

Daniels Running Formula (Human Kinetics) wrote:

"A tempo run is nothing more than 20 minutes of steady running at threshold pace."

Pete Pfitzinger wrote:

"For very fit runners, the pace is between 15K and half-marathon race pace." For those fond of using heart rate monitors, Daniels notes that tempo runs are done at 90% of maximum.

If 4:30 is your threshold pace I would suggest just changing coach rather than letting him know what I said.

tunney

What is a junk mile?

An interesting topic and somewhat relevant to me at the moment. What I am doing at the moment is the epitome of junk miles. No plan, no target, no goals no consistency.

I swim, bike and run and were I more inexperienced I could consider myself training. However I'm not that inexperienced so I know I'm just doing junk miles.

To me a junk mile is a mile without focus, a mile without a goal, a session without a place in a bigger plan. The plan need not be detailed nor even written down but one has to exist.

A sportif can have a place in a plan.
A coffee stop ride can have a place in a plan. I gave one to someone a few weeks back because they needed it. With a 5:30 400m TT, a >400watt FTP and a 33 10km SB they can move but the coffee stop ride fitted perfectly for where they were and the mood they were in.

If its planned, if it has purpose, if it has a goal - then its not junk.

peter kern

btw its actually a really good question bryan asked.
and tunnys table could be useful for some.

bryangiggsy

peter kern wrote: »

not really again you seem to think that you need to do something at an exact intesity to do it right
there is more a difference runing 30 min 60 min and 90 min ;-)
so 30 min at 5 min fine and likely better than 60 min at 5.15 if as pure recovery run .
but nothing that would be junk miles. as again the time you sleep and the stress you have would have an higher impact than going 5 or 5.15 pace.

I agree Peter re stress and sleep but if you can only control that to a certain point ie with kids then you have to get bang for your buck elsehwere. If someone has only 12/13 hrs to train a week I would want to make them count. Everyone is entitled to their opinion yet people coming on here and attacking a poster with their keyboard when they dont know the full story hours,paces,hr,watts or background is pathetic.

bryangiggsy

tunney wrote: »

If 4:30 is your threshold pace I would suggest just changing coach rather than letting him know what I said.

Where did i say 4.30 is my threshold pace ? Get your facts straight

peter kern

http://sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss-part-3-fat/

this is a good one too that not only one way leads to rome ( the 2nd graph ) and you need to think aoubt many more compontents to get somewhere.

bryangiggsy

tunney wrote: »

What is a junk mile?



A sportif can have a place in a plan.
A coffee stop ride can have a place in a plan. I gave one to someone a few weeks back because they needed it. With a 5:30 400m TT, a >400watt FTP and a 33 10km SB they can move but the coffee stop ride fitted perfectly for where they were and the mood they were in.

.

Never miss an oppurtunity to promote your "coaching" eh

sconhome

Wow, any thoughts on how a thread on junk miles gets lost in junk?

Go off to read a link and come back to MMA :rolleyes:

peter kern

bryangiggsy wrote: »

I agree Peter re stress and sleep but if you can only control that to a certain point ie with kids then you have to get bang for your buck elsehwere. If someone has only 12/13 hrs to train a week I would want to make them count. Everyone is entitled to their opinion yet people coming on here and attacking a poster with their keyboard when they dont know the full story hours,paces,hr,watts or background is pathetic.

so in this case 20- 30 min at 5 min k pace gives a better bang for your buck than lets say 60 at 5.15.
for zico who has more time I think his easy runs are perfect.
but than you also have to think aobut biomechanics weight age injury history..
.

peter kern

bryangiggsy wrote: »

I agree Peter re stress and sleep but if you can only control that to a certain point ie with kids then you have to get bang for your buck elsehwere. If someone has only 12/13 hrs to train a week I would want to make them count. Everyone is entitled to their opinion yet people coming on here and attacking a poster with their keyboard when they dont know the full story hours,paces,hr,watts or background is pathetic.

btw and my last comment on this you want to be good training 12-13 hours a week pick up running ;-)
this is half pink but when we talk about sport its also important to select the right sport for one's lifestyle
if it's about performance , otherwise also think about the fun.
if you have only 12-13 hours and want to be good at half ironman i would say you are more an junk athlete and better invest your time to become good at the sprint distance.

I hope you can see what i am trying to say here .

bryangiggsy

peter kern wrote: »

btw and my last comment on this you want to be good training 12-13 hours a week pick up running ;-)
this is half pink but when we talk about sport its also important to select the right sport for one's lifestyle
if it's about performance , otherwise also think about the fun.
if you have only 12-13 hours and want to be good at half ironman i would say you are more an junk athlete and better invest your time to become good at the sprint distance.

I hope you can see what i am trying to say here .

I'll say nothing from now on Peter. Have learned my lesson.

bryangiggsy

bryangiggsy wrote: »

I'll say nothing from now on Peter. Have learned my lesson.

Ps Peter I hope to quote you on this thread later in the summer

StaggerLee

peter kern wrote: »

btw and my last comment on this you want to be good training 12-13 hours a week pick up running ;-)
this is half pink but when we talk about sport its also important to select the right sport for one's lifestyle
if it's about performance , otherwise also think about the fun.
if you have only 12-13 hours and want to be good at half ironman i would say you are more an junk athlete and better invest your time to become good at the sprint distance.

I hope you can see what i am trying to say here .

Peter, how many hours a week would a good 70.3 AG athlete be doing on average, say someone looking to get in the top 50 in Athlone in July?

peter kern

bryangiggsy wrote: »

I'll say nothing from now on Peter. Have learned my lesson.

I think you misunderstood me a bit ,this has nothing to do with you and of course you can do your best with 12-13 hours and we all know people that never study and got good marks in school.

but what iam saying here is the longer the distances become the more endurance training you have to do and while 12-13 hours is good it will not get people to the full potential, while doing 12-13 hours as a runner with a bit of cross training gets you very close to your max potential.
so when you really talk to become close to the best you can be at something you have to consider the time factor too.

I said it was half pink as i of course totally understand to make the best of the time available but when we talk about junk we also have to think how to select the right sport and distance to our life stle and i guess this is the first question we have to ask when we talk junk miles what distance is one training for

most of the guys that did well at the ras muhan would do around 16-20 hours of cycling a week ( some more some less but the average would be likley around 18 .
in trithlon the number would be similar good oly guys doing around 16 hours a week again some more some less
there is also people that are pretty good with 12-13 hours at the oly distance a week but then we see that when it comes to the half they are not as good anymore.

to be good in running unotl the half distance you need about 10 hours training a week.

Anyway but what i come down to if you dont have the time to train stay at shorter distances and do well there rather than doing an ironman with 8 hours of training a week ( which is junk training for an ironman regardless how well you train , you are ticking a bucket list- and nothing wrong with this either and the race day will hurt you as much or more than anybody - but your cant train well for an ironman with 8 hours of training a week
so i feel this is part of the discusion and now since it has calmed down it might be worth to start it again.
with thinking about the distance first.

peter kern

StaggerLee wrote: »

Peter, how many hours a week would a good 70.3 AG athlete be doing on average, say someone looking to get in the top 50 in Athlone in July?

how long is piece of string ;-0
i could come top 50 with prob 8 hours a week
top 20 with 11 hours a week top 10 with 14 top 5 with 18 hours a week.

littlemsfickle

tunney wrote: »

What is a junk mile?

An interesting topic and somewhat relevant to me at the moment. What I am doing at the moment is the epitome of junk miles. No plan, no target, no goals no consistency.

I swim, bike and run and were I more inexperienced I could consider myself training. However I'm not that inexperienced so I know I'm just doing junk miles.

To me a junk mile is a mile without focus, a mile without a goal, a session without a place in a bigger plan. The plan need not be detailed nor even written down but one has to exist.

This suggest that less experienced people who aren't following a plan but just want to train to stay fit and healthy are ignorant of the fact that they're "just doing junk miles". People can train without a specific goal without their workouts being junk.

I think the term is only relevant to people who have committed to following a particular plan and engage in activities which undermine it. Of course plans need to be flexible as Peter said and it's not always the right choice to go for the hard session when your body isn't up to it. But when you say, "oh I'm too tired from that TRX session last night to do those hard run intervals, I'll just go for an easy spin instead", you lose the benefit of the race-specific session (the run) in favour of something that does nothing to further your goals of competing in triathlon. To me that's what constitutes junk miles.

bryangiggsy

peter kern wrote: »

how long is piece of string ;-0
i could come top 50 with prob 8 hours a week
top 20 with 11 hours a week top 10 with 14 top 5 with 18 hours a week.

Id be happy with a top 15

peter kern

i guess both bellow comments are right
in a way

but I would say almost the opposite to tunney i think you have too high goals which you cant meet right now.
so less of targets goals etc would be good for you as every easy session that dosnt cause injury will create a stimuli at your present stage ( which is kind of true for every beginner, of course you would progress much faster but still the same principle would apply .hurry slowly ) .
so in a way its better doing as many easy sessions as you can, and the junk miles are the ones where a certain goal is tried to be achieved but that session leads to injury.

i have done loads of junk miles in daves definition but they all kept me fit ( i agree totally with bryan they were defo not my best bang for the money)
but all those hundreds of 8 k easy runs maintained a certain level of fitness or would built a foundation for beginners.
(a bit like the kenyans that built a foundation running to school while we europeans are being driven to school )
and when i want to train i can start as i have a foundation .
so what you call junk miles i would almost call foundation miles, but i think in a way we have agreed that what ones junk miles can be other peoples good miles.
but also the definition of a junk mile can change during one year for the same athlete.






Originally Posted by tunney
What is a junk mile?

An interesting topic and somewhat relevant to me at the moment. What I am doing at the moment is the epitome of junk miles. No plan, no target, no goals no consistency.

I swim, bike and run and were I more inexperienced I could consider myself training. However I'm not that inexperienced so I know I'm just doing junk miles.

To me a junk mile is a mile without focus, a mile without a goal, a session without a place in a bigger plan. The plan need not be detailed nor even written down but one has to exist.


This suggest that less experienced people who aren't following a plan but just want to train to stay fit and healthy are ignorant of the fact that they're "just doing junk miles". People can train without a specific goal without their workouts being junk.

I think the term is only relevant to people who have committed to following a particular plan and engage in activities which undermine it. Of course plans need to be flexible as Peter said and it's not always the right choice to go for the hard session when your body isn't up to it. But when you say, "oh I'm too tired from that TRX session last night to do those hard run intervals, I'll just go for an easy spin instead", you lose the benefit of the race-specific session (the run) in favour of something that does nothing to further your goals of competing in triathlon. To me that's what constitutes junk miles.

bryangiggsy

pgibbo wrote: »

It's not all about the physical either folks. Sometimes you just go and run/bike with friends or colleagues because it's a beautiful sunny day or you fancy training with company for a change. Some might consider it junk miles but if it's a mental break or a refreshing change then there's a benefit to be had.

Well put Paul. I could not agree with you more. The reason i started the thread was that the folk new to triathlon who wanted to get better avoided some of the mistakes I made. There was no other agenda. Yet a small minority of folk not new to triathlon or running decided to take offence and reacted. And im not going to sit back and take abuse. It s a familiar theme on the Tri forum. Newbies are put off from contributing for fear of being ridiculed by the mental elitism of a minority. How often have we seen this on other threads? Its a shame really as the tri forum should be thriving with the oncoming season fast approaching and the explosion of triathlon in Ireland over the past 5 years yet its barely ticking over. I have said my piece and i am not going to get into a tit for tat. If anyone has an issue with what Im saying and would like to discuss further. Or if any newbie would like to ask me any questions on the mistakes i made pm me or come chat with me at a race. Over and out. Bryan

peter kern

i take it you dodnt agree that chosing the right distance for ones life style is important when we talk about junk miles ;-)
i do not think there is anything elitist when i say that most people chose the wrong distance to train proper for it.

i would think your comments are elitist as you dismissed club spins and sportives as junk miles when this is not correct ( it can be correct but it dosnt have to be) . For most people it is indeed about getting fit and have fun and not the best you can be. So therefore a club spin and sportive play a crucial place for those atheltes training and having fun is absolutely not junk training.

I suggest maybe you outline what mistakes you did and what you have improved. Rather than making a statement where you say club spins are not realted to triathlon

bryangiggsy wrote: »

Well put Paul. I could not agree with you more. The reason i started the thread was that the folk new to triathlon who wanted to get better avoided some of the mistakes I made. There was no other agenda. Yet a small minority of folk not new to triathlon or running decided to take offence and reacted. And im not going to sit back and take abuse. It s a familiar theme on the Tri forum. Newbies are put off from contributing for fear of being ridiculed by the mental elitism of a minority. How often have we seen this on other threads? Its a shame really as the tri forum should be thriving with the oncoming season fast approaching and the explosion of triathlon in Ireland over the past 5 years yet its barely ticking over. I have said my piece and i am not going to get into a tit for tat. If anyone has an issue with what Im saying and would like to discuss further. Or if any newbie would like to ask me any questions on the mistakes i made pm me or come chat with me at a race. Over and out. Bryan

bryangiggsy

peter kern wrote: »

i take it you dodnt agree that chosing the right distance for ones life style is important when we talk about junk miles ;-)
i do not think there is anything elitist when i say that most people chose the wrong distance to train proper for it.

i would think your comments are elitist as you dismissed club spins and sportives as junk miles when this is not correct ( it can be correct but it dosnt have to be) . For most people it is indeed about getting fit and have fun and not the best you can be. So therefore a club spin and sportive play a crucial place for those atheltes training and having fun is absolutely not junk training.

I suggest maybe you outline what mistakes you did and what you have improved. Rather than making a statement where you say club spins are not realted to triathlon

Peter I will talk to you in person about it next wed after swimming. No point in trying to explain it more clearly here as this thread seems to have been lost in translation.

MrCreosote

Surely the right distance for your lifestyle is the one that will give a person the most satisfaction. Plenty of people get more satisfaction from a12-13 hr ironman than knocking out sub-60 sprints.

MojoMaker

There's not that many people that can knock out sub-60 sprints to begin with

For someone starting out on the journey in Tri and trying to establish a fitness base over the first say 2 years, are there really any such thing as junk miles? I would have guessed all miles are good miles in the early days as long as it doesn't lead to injury, and that the concept of junk miles only becomes more relevant when the fitness base is established, the training plan set, and the goals clear?

Also 12-13 hours a week is far from the beginner/newbie level of training so be careful with the word "only" or you might put us armchair triathletes off

peter kern

MrCreosote wrote: »

Surely the right distance for your lifestyle is the one that will give a person the most satisfaction. Plenty of people get more satisfaction from a12-13 hr ironman than knocking out sub-60 sprints.

Yes ironman did very well selling that dream