FitnessBanter.com

FitnessBanter.com (http://www.fitnessbanter.com/index.php)
-   Swimming (http://www.fitnessbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Swimming ---Is Weight Loss Possible? (http://www.fitnessbanter.com/showthread.php?t=25483)

RECNEPS December 23rd 04 09:00 PM

Swimming ---Is Weight Loss Possible?
 
I am a basketball player by trade, but love to run and swim to get in
shape.
Now that the years have stacked up on me, running is hard on the knees,
therefore,
swimming is the alternative. Is it truly possible to lose substantial
weight (fat)
from swimming, Ive been told that weight loss may be minimal because of
the water temperature dampening any true calories burned. If weight
loss is possible, how long and how strong (hours and speed) should be
administered.
Thanks in advance for all my swimmmers out there.


jtaylor December 23rd 04 09:12 PM


"RECNEPS" wrote in message
oups.com...
I am a basketball player by trade, but love to run and swim to get in
shape.
Now that the years have stacked up on me, running is hard on the knees,
therefore,
swimming is the alternative. Is it truly possible to lose substantial
weight (fat)
from swimming, Ive been told that weight loss may be minimal because of
the water temperature dampening any true calories burned. If weight
loss is possible, how long and how strong (hours and speed) should be
administered.
Thanks in advance for all my swimmmers out there.


Swimming for your purpose is intrinsically no better, nor any worse, than
any other form of exercise.

There is no magic in fat or weight loss - all that's required is that you
use more calories than you consume.

This is somewhat complicated by

a) muscle weighing more than fat by volume, so an exercise regimen can
actually reduce size without a reduction in weight;
b) extreme effects at very low caloric intake; and
c) the body's re-adjustment of caloric retention in response to reduced
intake.

Howevere, if you are fatter than you wish to be, thee's no help for it - you
must find a combination of eating less and exercising more that suits your
character. Swim if you like - and don't worry; water temperature "dampening
the burning" of calories is the kind of garbage verbiage we find too much of
these days (and not just on r.s.s).



Steve Freides December 24th 04 12:11 AM

"RECNEPS" wrote in message
oups.com...
I am a basketball player by trade, but love to run and swim to get in
shape.
Now that the years have stacked up on me, running is hard on the
knees,
therefore,
swimming is the alternative. Is it truly possible to lose substantial
weight (fat)
from swimming, Ive been told that weight loss may be minimal because
of
the water temperature dampening any true calories burned. If weight
loss is possible, how long and how strong (hours and speed) should be
administered.
Thanks in advance for all my swimmmers out there.


You don't state your age but I've found strength training and the
maintenance of muscle more and more important the older I get.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com



Gregory Toomey December 24th 04 06:09 AM

RECNEPS wrote:

I am a basketball player by trade, but love to run and swim to get in
shape.
Now that the years have stacked up on me, running is hard on the knees,
therefore,
swimming is the alternative. Is it truly possible to lose substantial
weight (fat)
from swimming, Ive been told that weight loss may be minimal because of
the water temperature dampening any true calories burned. If weight
loss is possible, how long and how strong (hours and speed) should be
administered.
Thanks in advance for all my swimmmers out there.


I lost 25kg (55lb) in 6 months, swimming 50 mins/day for 4 days/week.
That was over 15 years ago in an indoor heated pool.

gtoomey

Martin W. Smith December 24th 04 08:24 AM

"RECNEPS" wrote:

I am a basketball player by trade, but love to run and swim to get in
shape.
Now that the years have stacked up on me, running is hard on the knees,
therefore,
swimming is the alternative. Is it truly possible to lose substantial
weight (fat)
from swimming, Ive been told that weight loss may be minimal because of
the water temperature dampening any true calories burned.


Water temperature can't hinder burning of calories from exercise. The
temperature has nothing to do with that. The work performed requires a
specific amount of energy, and enough calories will be burned to
produce that energy regardless of the water temperature.

On the other hand, if the water temperature is low, it will cause your
body to shiver, causing you to burn *more* calories.

If weight
loss is possible, how long and how strong (hours and speed) should be
administered.
Thanks in advance for all my swimmmers out there.


About an hour a day, say 3000 meters, some easy, some hard, combined
with eating fewer calories. In particular, eliminate all refined sugar
and flour.


Dave December 24th 04 07:39 PM

On 23 Dec 2004 12:00:13 -0800, "RECNEPS" wrote:

I am a basketball player by trade, but love to run and swim to get in
shape.
Now that the years have stacked up on me, running is hard on the knees,
therefore,
swimming is the alternative. Is it truly possible to lose substantial
weight (fat)
from swimming, Ive been told that weight loss may be minimal because of
the water temperature dampening any true calories burned. If weight
loss is possible, how long and how strong (hours and speed) should be
administered.
Thanks in advance for all my swimmmers out there.


Learnt to swim 6 months ago at the age of 44 and have lost at least
14lbs and according to my girlfriend my whole body has changed for the
better. Coupled with sensible eating though I wonder if my technique
has anything to do with it! ;-)

Dave

Jason O'Rourke December 25th 04 05:43 AM

jtaylor wrote:
Swimming for your purpose is intrinsically no better, nor any worse, than
any other form of exercise.

There is no magic in fat or weight loss - all that's required is that you
use more calories than you consume.


It is inherently inferior to running for weight loss because the hourly
caloric burn is signficantly lower. This is largely in the difference of
suspended weight in the water. You have to swim pretty hard to get the HR
and calorie usage up in the vicinity.

On the other side is the impact column. It does the guy no good if he gets
hurt running and instead is burning 0 calories. Though injuries can happen
to (really) high volume swimmers, it looks far less common than for the daily
runners. Cycling also offers this advantage and would be good to match with
the pool time.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

jtaylor December 25th 04 06:10 PM


"Jason O'Rourke" wrote in message
...
jtaylor wrote:
Swimming for your purpose is intrinsically no better, nor any worse, than
any other form of exercise.

There is no magic in fat or weight loss - all that's required is that you
use more calories than you consume.


It is inherently inferior to running for weight loss because the hourly
caloric burn is signficantly lower.


No true. There are studies that show swimming has a higher energy cost per
unit time than running, when both are at maximal effort levels.. The rate
of is of course, all dependant of the work rate of the person doing the
exercise.

The truth is that the person who wishes to burn more calories than they
consume must DECIDE to do so, and the rate at which they burn and the rate
at which they consume are totally under their own control. The methods they
choose have minimal influence.



Steve Freides December 25th 04 08:59 PM

"jtaylor" wrote in message
...

"Jason O'Rourke" wrote in message
...
jtaylor wrote:
Swimming for your purpose is intrinsically no better, nor any worse,
than
any other form of exercise.

There is no magic in fat or weight loss - all that's required is
that you
use more calories than you consume.


It is inherently inferior to running for weight loss because the
hourly
caloric burn is signficantly lower.


No true. There are studies that show swimming has a higher energy
cost per
unit time than running, when both are at maximal effort levels.. The
rate
of is of course, all dependant of the work rate of the person doing
the
exercise.


No one does most of their exercise at "maximal effort levels." Whatever
the case, I think subjective reactions and anecodotal evidence are as
useful if not more useful than anything scientific when it comes to
things like - there are simply too many variables, e.g., running may be
tougher but elite runners spend far less time at their chosen sport on a
daily basis than do elite swimmers - and the list of why you can't
really compare could go on and on.

I've been a runner, swimmer, and cyclist for years although I've never
done a triathlon - I just happen to enjoy all three. My experience says
that, when I run regularly, my swimming and cycling performances gets
better, but neither swimming nor cycling helps my running performance
nor do they help each other. (Well, I did go to one triathlon once as
part of a three-man team. I did the running leg and the whole thing was
entertaining but a mismatch - I was the fastest cyclist of the three of
us but I was running, and the cyclist was the fastest swimmer but he was
on the bike. The guy who swam was the guy who organized the team and,
well, you get the idea. Still, it was fun, but I don't get the whole
idea of the transition and how one's time matters - who gives a hoot who
fast someone can change clothes?)

The truth is that the person who wishes to burn more calories than
they
consume must DECIDE to do so, and the rate at which they burn and the
rate
at which they consume are totally under their own control. The
methods they
choose have minimal influence.


That's all well and good but, when it comes to the real world, if you
asked me - and probably a lot of other people, too - whether running,
swimming, or bicycling is the best way to drop some body fat, I'd
recommend running first.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com






Jason O'Rourke December 25th 04 11:23 PM

jtaylor wrote:
It is inherently inferior to running for weight loss because the hourly
caloric burn is signficantly lower.


No true. There are studies that show swimming has a higher energy cost per
unit time than running, when both are at maximal effort levels.. The rate
of is of course, all dependant of the work rate of the person doing the
exercise.


Because of the way drag increases with speed, swimming has the potential, but
the reality is that very few can or will do so. While running 3 miles in 30
minutes has the same burn as running it in 20. Even running 10 minute miles
translates to 800 cal/hour for a medium weight man. That's because nothing
gets around the work of lifting the body off the ground. No floating or coasting.

My HR for an easy run is about 160. For distance swimming in 55F water, it's 110.
Estimating calorie burn, it's 1000+/hr versus 500. I'm not a fast swimmer, but I
do have 5 Alcatraz swims to my credit.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2006 FitnessBanter