Friday, June 1, 2012

I Got Your "Junk" Miles


If you are a recreational runner, there is a decent chance you've never even heard the phrase "junk miles." Despite clocking 30 miles per week, I certainly qualify as a "recreational runner," never having run long-distance in competition. However, I do read a lot of books and magazine articles about running, and it is here we find references to the junk-mile concept in abundance, usually by highly competitive types. 

Don't get me wrong, I respect the highly competitive types who find ways to motivate themselves by finding new training challenges for most of their runs (let's say 80%), with the balance of their miles (20% or less) constituting "junk," which might be defined as running for no other reason than to log the miles, and often in a slow and unpurposed fashion.

Well, since I don't compete, I suppose that makes most of my miles something close to "pure" junk.

Or does it?

Let me beg to differ.

I run for health, I run for the high, I run for the therapy, and oneness it provides me with the Big Fella Upstairs. I run to listen to u2 and Coldplay connect me with the other side of the Universe. I run for running's sake. I run because, simply put, running represents the single-most thing I look forward to every day. It is the one reason why I wake up in the middle of the night, excited to lace them up and get on with it. It is my escape from everything else. Nothing else really competes with my run.

Yes, I still love me kids, my dog, my job, my family, and a sports team or two. I still love to read the Economist. But do I get up in the middle of the night every night for their sake? No, I can't say that I do. But running? Well, yes, quite emphatically, yes. Yes. YES!

At some point, age will catch up with the competitive types, and their choice will be to adjust their goals downward, quit running, or, heaven forbid, run for running's sake, for the intrinsic value that comes with the miles.

Only then, perhaps, will the phrase "junk miles" fall into disuse among their lexicon.

No comments:

Post a Comment