Junk Miles?
 

I've been riding seriously (as in, to improve speed/endurance) only about a year but over the summer I've been averaging over 200 miles a week (fairly hard) and really enjoying how much stronger I feel, especially powering up some of the hills that had previously left me with my tongue hanging out on the stem….

But, with the fall comes a changed work schedule and while commuting I get 20 miles a day and I try to make them spirited (some hills, sprinting stop lights, etc). On the weekends I have a bit more free time and for the last three weeks. I've gone out and ridden a solo 100 mile route, in about 6 hours. But really, there are still only so many hours in the day and while I enjoy this, if this isn't building something, then I have the option of switching to a hard group ride that's 60 miles and reaches puke levels towards the end. This ride ends up being 3 hours.

So, I'm looking for some reassurance that the 100 solo miles aren't junk miles in terms of training (they certainly aren't mentally but that's a separate issue). Usually my average heart rate is about 140s and the next day I'm a wee bit fatigued but I can still go out and hammer a 25 to 30 mile with the neighborhood folks, so I'm clearly not killing myself.

(I'll probably end up alternating the group ride and the 100 since they seem complimentary. Maybe I don't want to do it every week because my wife is in A group so I'm still coming to terms with being dropped by her once in a while)…

There's no such thing as junk miles ... especially if you're enjoying yourself ... they all work toward building or maintaining fitness/wellness.

But regarding your debate between doing a 100 mile ride each weekend or a 60 mile ride each weekend, I'd recommend alternating.

Don't forget to take some time off now and then too.

I don't believe in junk miles either. Every mile has a purpose whether to build endurance, suffer through while riding an interval, etc.
Beyond that you can have an easier time riding 100 miles as opposed to a 12 mile time trial. It just depends on your goals.
I have a 7 month old and an 8 year old in the house. As such I ride faster shorter distances to keep the wife happy. They keep me in shape for the occasional 120 miler with 12,000 feet of climbing. Occasional being the key word there.

Forget about junk miles. If you are riding at a reasonable pace, and if your heart rate is in the 140s you certainly are, then extensive long steady distance (LSD) riding will do as much for you as intensive training. It takes longer to derive the same benefit, but it has some advantages too: one can recover overnight from extensive moderate efforts whereas a high-intensity intervals session might limit you to a rest day or just a recovery ride the next day.

The main reason people have moved on to shorter "sweet spot" rides at higher heart rates and power outputs is that it means they can get the same adaptive effects while spending less time on the bike. If you have the time to do long rides, that's great. And if they are mixed in with more intensive short efforts while you commute, I'd say that's a pretty effective, varied training programme. The only thing you are probably missing is the eyeballs-out zone 5 work that will give you the neuromuscular adaptations needed for the " jump" at the start of a full-on sprint, but hey - not everyone wants to be Mark Cavendish.

Less time on the bike means more time for other things. Just like less time on the computer. Don't we all have work to do? Or are we about one in 6, underemployed?

At this time of year I would do whatever is mentally easier. If hammering every weekend gets tiresome switch up to the long solo rides and add more intensity as you get closer to racing season, assuming that's where you're heading. The long slower rides are also better for dropping weight if you need to do that.

No, we don't. And less time on the bike isn't everyone's objective.

Great and thanks for the input. I'll probably end up alternating. Definitely not trying for less time on the bike, but Garfield is correct that I've also got other **** to do. I guess I hear runners talk about junk miles alot more than I hear cyclists...

Hmm, I'll look to see where I can fit in some eye-balls out zone 5. I'll make Cat-6 yet!

You just need the jersey from Twin Six. Auto cat 6 upgrade! ;)

+1

Less time on the bicycle is definitely not the objective! Even when we're employed fulltime.

Are there such a thing as "junk miles"? Yes and no.

From my own experience as a distance runner, I can tell you that it's all about HOW you accrue your miles, relative to your goals.

If you want to maintain general heart health and wellness, then no, no mile is a junk mile, everything you do is helping you on your way.

If you want to get stronger though, there are obviously some things that are more effective than others. If you want to build muscle and tone, better to pump hard over long distance and go anaerobic. Going two hours at a pleasant 140 bpm will probably not build muscle, unless your max is 160...(I said probably not, everyone is different though)

Personally, whether it's biking or running, I set a lofty distance goal and try to get to it faster than I did yesterday. It's getting harder and harder to break my own records, but I consider it a good workout as long as I'm dripping, regardless of whether my average hr is 170 or 182.

The OP was talking about rides of six hours, not two, at an average 140 HR. This is a major difference between cycling and running. Because cycling is non weight-bearing it is possible to train extensively for periods that would destroy a runner. As a result the long steady distance strategy is much more practicable and effective for cyclists than runners. "Distance builds speed" was a maxim of old-time cycling pros, and while it has to some extent been supplanted by more time-efficient regimens, it's still true.

And building muscle isn't that important to cyclists. It's necessary if you want to be a track sprinter, but cycling is overwhelmingly an aerobic sport. I'd certainly recommend going anaerobic sometimes, that's how you raise your threshold, but if you want to build muscle it's a hell of a lot quicker in the gym.

The term "junk miles" is only meaningful in the context of already having a program or training schedule that results in a defined goal.

So as long you realize that your 100 mile rides are for no other purpose but to make you good at riding 100 miles then thay aren't "junk" - they are "base miles."

However, if you have alternate cycling goals, such as getting faster and keeping up with you wife, or climbing a hill faster, then you have to pay attnetion as to how your 100 mile rides affect the other kinds of riding that are "goal oriented."