Junk Training

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

RJM85

peter kern wrote: »

Yes ironman did very well selling that dream

A tattoo that says 'sprint triathlon' isn't really the same...

sconhome

MojoMaker wrote: »

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?

I think this ^ is the clearest statement of the entire thread.

Starting out in any sport there is no such thing as junk training. You are still finding your way and will have no clear goal other than to complete an event rather than compete.

When the shoe is on the other foot and you are at a stage where you can start thinking of competing that is another matter. Depending on time constraints to me junk miles or junk training is low quality training that is taking the place of any structured session.

ie instead of doing the planned session you opt for the easy way out and piddle around on the bike for an hour - that is junk. It is also well aside from the concept of leisure training which I think is quite important too, we need to downtime and if it suits you to do that on the hills in the sun or a jog in the park so be it.

To co-opt a phrase - One man's junk is another man's gold.





Cue sniggering 'man-junk' jokes

MrCreosote

peter kern wrote: »

Yes ironman did very well selling that dream

Does that matter? Who cares where the dream came from?

peter kern

I only try to make sure people understand that the less training you do the smarter it is to stick to shorter distances ( and if people like to go long it's all good) and I totally agree with your post there is no too slow miles for a beginner as they built the foundation. Most triathletes get the buck train 2 years intensive and then burn out long before they reach their potential so a few easy years to start with that don't interfere with ones lifestyle too much and then 2 intensive years is the smarter way in my mind .
This is why I said both tunny and little miss trickle are right in what they say you do need to think about a long term goal but also don't be to worried about training at the beginning . Many people start to fast to early. And then get injured . And this are the worst junk miles when we get injured or burn out .
While Iam typing this Iam being told about an Croatian pro that was a couple of years top 5 in an ironman and 3 years before apparantly was persuaded to come with a few friends for his first jog . Which I guess underlines that talent also plays a part in what are junk miles and what not .

MojoMaker wrote: »

There's not that many people that 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: »

Does that matter? Who cares where the dream came from?

of course not but people nowadays think its better to do an ironman in 15hours than runming 10 k in 40 min and this concpet is wrong in my mind, at the end of the day whatever gets one of the couch is good.

rooneyjm

I did 10k of complete junk yesterday in the Phoenix Park with the wife but I'll be getting the training benefits for months.

Podge83

These are my opinions (many may disagree but that's what makes the world turn)

I've been reading this thread over the last few days and it does throw up some great points and clashes of thinking between differing coaching ideas.

Coaches I have spoken to reflect this too. Some people (athletes (triathletes)) sometimes need differing methods to suit their own way of thinking and to settle their psychological desires (from a training point of view).

I know one self coached athlete who isn't happy unless he is doing big volume with big effort consistently - whether he can handle it or not and gets injured a fair bit - I'm sure he could perform better if he refined!!?? - surely some junk in there!!. I know another who adopts the slow development, total HR training spouted by his coach who is consistently improving, winning races and rarely getting injured (and when injured it tends to be minor and short lived). Much of his training is low intensity, medium length runs traditionally termed "junk" by many. The former tried coaching with the latters coach and couldn't handle the low intensity. This doesn't stack up in most peoples minds but its where the former wants to be (make sense).

I've listened to all and tried to adopt where I see the best combination between volume and quality for myself developing over the year (off season base, on season sharpening etc) - this hasn't always worked and last year I was done come July - touching wood my history of getting injured seems to be improving (save the odd twitch which clears fairly quickly - because I "listen" to these now) this year I'm hoping to time things better. Its ok to make mistakes, but learn from them. For sure I do some medium length easy paced "junk" mile runs.

So where are the junk miles?? - In the past "junk Miles" in my mind were the aimless 5 or so mile runs a few times a week to fill the weekly mileage target - but were these junk when they provided an aerobic boost, burned calories and filled the psychological target of hitting the weeks target??

Peters view is "its junk if its too much and injures you" - For sure that's junk - no question there!!! On the other hand one view would be in between effort sessions would you be better resting than doing that 5 mile easy "recovery" run - is that recovery run junk? (ie would you be better off without it?)

Whatever view you have, if I ever see an athlete I know improving after apparently being at the same level for some time (and I have seen many over the years) the reply usually is that "I upped my mileage". Surely this isn't junk!!

Oryx

The corollary of that Podge is the experience of some, who drop mileage and yet improve because the training they keep is more specfic with less 'filler' miles. Thats been my experience.

peter kern

bryangiggsy wrote: »

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.

I am happy to talk aobut it as iam always interested in this. But I really think it would be best if you outline what your point of view is and why and dont worry what other people think
( there is many possibilities that can be right )

peter kern

Podge83 wrote: »

These are my opinions (many may disagree but that's what makes the world turn)

I've been reading this thread over the last few days and it does throw up some great points and clashes of thinking between differing coaching ideas.

Coaches I have spoken to reflect this too. Some people (athletes (triathletes)) sometimes need differing methods to suit their own way of thinking and to settle their psychological desires (from a training point of view).

I know one self coached athlete who isn't happy unless he is doing big volume with big effort consistently - whether he can handle it or not and gets injured a fair bit - I'm sure he could perform better if he refined!!?? - surely some junk in there!!. I know another who adopts the slow development, total HR training spouted by his coach who is consistently improving, winning races and rarely getting injured (and when injured it tends to be minor and short lived). Much of his training is low intensity, medium length runs traditionally termed "junk" by many. The former tried coaching with the latters coach and couldn't handle the low intensity. This doesn't stack up in most peoples minds but its where the former wants to be (make sense).

I've listened to all and tried to adopt where I see the best combination between volume and quality for myself developing over the year (off season base, on season sharpening etc) - this hasn't always worked and last year I was done come July - touching wood my history of getting injured seems to be improving (save the odd twitch which clears fairly quickly - because I "listen" to these now) this year I'm hoping to time things better. Its ok to make mistakes, but learn from them. For sure I do some medium length easy paced "junk" mile runs.

So where are the junk miles?? - In the past "junk Miles" in my mind were the aimless 5 or so mile runs a few times a week to fill the weekly mileage target - but were these junk when they provided an aerobic boost, burned calories and filled the psychological target of hitting the weeks target??

Peters view is "its junk if its too much and injures you" - For sure that's junk - no question there!!! On the other hand one view would be in between effort sessions would you be better resting than doing that 5 mile easy "recovery" run - is that recovery run junk? (ie would you be better off without it?)

Whatever view you have, if I ever see an athlete I know improving after apparently being at the same level for some time (and I have seen many over the years) the reply usually is that "I upped my mileage". Surely this isn't junk!!

good stuff

one of the worlds top 10 tri coaches in the world joel fiellieol would say to increase frequency of seeesions is most effective way to get better . at the same time one of his better 70.3 athletes would mostly run 3 times a week as she gets injured doing more training.
I think this example has more substance than saying what ones junk miles are can be other peoples good miles ( that pharase is great mumbo jumbo and sounds great but has little substance with out outlining why this can be )

i guess you can see from tunneys table what impact and easy 5 mile run has on somebodies body. At the same time is dosnt work for everybody.

Anyway i do think that bryans point of this thread is not that more is more, his goal is to outline how to get better with not more BUT better trainings hours, ie doing the right thing, at the right time ( and of course this can change form year to year)
And unfortunately i did derail that a bit with my 12-13 hour comment. And while i think it is important to think about the right distance first . I think we should maybe go back how to make the best out of 6 9 12 and 15 hours training a week.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Training/General_Training/Junk_miles_1444.html I thhink this is an article why bryan suggests that club spins can be bad ( and tunny reported something similar a few years ago with his old club) and i say they can also be very good . as it really depends on many factors.