A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Swimming
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Swim Slower and Burn More Calories



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 17th 03, 02:56 PM
DrClean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories

Yes but the title says "Swim Slower" not "Swim Less Efficiently".
--
DrClean

"Martin W. Smith" wrote in message
...
DrClean wrote:
There's no question of doubt that if you work harder, for a given amount

of
time, you will burn more calories than if you saunter along - hence lose
more weight. However, the title to the post is what I was commenting

on - as
it has to be wrong.


It isn't wrong in my case. If I used a six beat kick, I would go slower
and burn a lot more calories. I've been thinking about doing this as a
way to burn more calories. It is even remotely possible that I will
somehow become able to swim efficiently with a six beat kick, but I
doubt it.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email:



  #22  
Old September 17th 03, 03:07 PM
Martin W. Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories

DrClean wrote:

Yes but the title says "Swim Slower" not "Swim Less Efficiently".


Yes it does. If you swim slower but burn more calories, you are swimming
less efficiently by definition.

martin

--
DrClean

"Martin W. Smith" wrote in message
...
DrClean wrote:
There's no question of doubt that if you work harder, for a given amount

of
time, you will burn more calories than if you saunter along - hence lose
more weight. However, the title to the post is what I was commenting

on - as
it has to be wrong.


It isn't wrong in my case. If I used a six beat kick, I would go slower
and burn a lot more calories. I've been thinking about doing this as a
way to burn more calories. It is even remotely possible that I will
somehow become able to swim efficiently with a six beat kick, but I
doubt it.

martin

--
Draft Wesley Clark for President!
www.DraftWesleyClark.com

Martin Smith email:


--
Wesley Clark for President
www.AmericansForClark.com

Martin Smith email:
  #23  
Old September 17th 03, 06:01 PM
DrClean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories


"Martin W. Smith" wrote in message
...
DrClean wrote:

Yes but the title says "Swim Slower" not "Swim Less Efficiently".


Yes it does. If you swim slower but burn more calories, you are swimming
less efficiently by definition.

martin


But I think we have to assume the swimmer has a small amount of sense and
wouldn't practice bad technique just to burn calories. After all we all know
the maxim "Perfect practice makes permenant". One could aqua jog or actually
go running if the aim is just to burn calories.

--
DrClean
www.DrClean.co.uk
The Best Fabric Cleaning Resource on the Web


  #24  
Old September 17th 03, 06:42 PM
4precious
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories

There's no question of doubt that if you work harder, for a given amount of
time, you will burn more calories than if you saunter along - hence lose
more weight. However, the title to the post is what I was commenting on - as
it has to be wrong.


Actually, I stand by my title. Swimming with a big kick is much more
vigorous exercise than not swimming with such a kick. And in my case,
since I possess an inefficient kick, it's actually a recipe for going
slower. Maybe over time my technique would improve so that I would go
faster with a vigorous kick, but at the start, it consumes much more
energy and yields a slower swim speed. Hence, burn more calories but
actually swim slower. Plus, to repeat what has been stated many times
on the group, the key to calorie burn and weight loss is lower body
exercise, and not upper body exercise. So kicking fits the bill
there.


If you look at triathlon/cycling/running training the principle of early
season base trainng is linked with teaching your body to burn fat not
glycogen. Lower exertion rates for a longer period of time. I haven't seen
any studies of long distance swimming and assume studies are harder, because
swimmers don't really consider themselves long distance athletes and it's
hard to take measurements in the water, but I would imagine the principle
remains the same.


If you're talking about Olympic distance triathlons, I disagree.
Those races are less than 2 hours for the elites, and some of that is
arms, and some legs. Not enough time to burn off all the glycogen.

If you're talking about Ironman distance, I agree with you, except I
doubt training for it in the way you suggest will help. Training at a
slow rate may allow the body to burn fat, but it's not what will
happen on race day. If it's even possible to train your body to burn
fat, you would have to go about it the way legendary Ironman Dave
Scott did it. (By the way, this is how some Tour de France cyclists
try to lower their body fat to something extremely low) You have to
starve yourself of carbs for awhile, then have an intense exercise
session to burn off all glycogen in the muscles. THEN you go out and
do long distance training. Fat stores is all your body can use. But
don't do this far from your house. Dave Scott used to get a little
disoriented when he tried this, so you want to be where someone can
find you or pick you up.

Eric
  #25  
Old September 18th 03, 09:43 AM
Martin W. Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories

DrClean wrote:

"Martin W. Smith" wrote in message
...
DrClean wrote:

Yes but the title says "Swim Slower" not "Swim Less Efficiently".


Yes it does. If you swim slower but burn more calories, you are swimming
less efficiently by definition.

martin


But I think we have to assume the swimmer has a small amount of sense and
wouldn't practice bad technique just to burn calories.


We aren't talking about bad technique. We're talking about changing to a
six beat kick. From my own experience, when I change to a six beat kick,
my technique does not degrade. I kick a lot harder, because I am kicking
6 beats per unit time instead of only 2, and I go slower because I have
to lengthen the unit time to be able to get all six beats in, the unit
time being my stroke cycle.

After all we all know
the maxim "Perfect practice makes permenant". One could aqua jog or actually
go running if the aim is just to burn calories.


In my case, I think switching to a six beat kick would burn more
calories. Running would hurt my knees. Aqua jogging doesn't do much for
me.

martin

--
Wesley Clark for President
www.AmericansForClark.com

Martin Smith email:
  #26  
Old September 18th 03, 06:23 PM
4precious
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories

We aren't talking about bad technique. We're talking about changing to a
six beat kick. From my own experience, when I change to a six beat kick,
my technique does not degrade. I kick a lot harder, because I am kicking
6 beats per unit time instead of only 2, and I go slower because I have
to lengthen the unit time to be able to get all six beats in, the unit
time being my stroke cycle.


Thank you Martin, that's what I've been thinking but haven't expressed
as well as you did.

When swimming, I think there's only one "band leader". Either the
legs are setting tempo, or the arms are. And if the legs set tempo,
it takes time to get all those six kicks in, which slows down the
stroke rate quite a bit. And that's a recipe for swimming slower
unless you have an effective kick.

Almost all recreational swimmers that I've observed, and a number of
elites as well, swim fastest when the arms set tempo. Let the arms
find their optimal rhythm, and then fit in what kick you can around
them.

eric
  #27  
Old September 18th 03, 06:23 PM
4precious
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories

We aren't talking about bad technique. We're talking about changing to a
six beat kick. From my own experience, when I change to a six beat kick,
my technique does not degrade. I kick a lot harder, because I am kicking
6 beats per unit time instead of only 2, and I go slower because I have
to lengthen the unit time to be able to get all six beats in, the unit
time being my stroke cycle.


Thank you Martin, that's what I've been thinking but haven't expressed
as well as you did.

When swimming, I think there's only one "band leader". Either the
legs are setting tempo, or the arms are. And if the legs set tempo,
it takes time to get all those six kicks in, which slows down the
stroke rate quite a bit. And that's a recipe for swimming slower
unless you have an effective kick.

Almost all recreational swimmers that I've observed, and a number of
elites as well, swim fastest when the arms set tempo. Let the arms
find their optimal rhythm, and then fit in what kick you can around
them.

eric
  #28  
Old September 18th 03, 07:27 PM
Chief Squawtendrawpet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories

4precious wrote:
When swimming, I think there's only one "band leader". Either the
legs are setting tempo, or the arms are. And if the legs set tempo,
it takes time to get all those six kicks in, which slows down the
stroke rate quite a bit. And that's a recipe for swimming slower
unless you have an effective kick.

Almost all recreational swimmers that I've observed, and a number of
elites as well, swim fastest when the arms set tempo. Let the arms
find their optimal rhythm, and then fit in what kick you can around
them.


You guys are talking about barely having time to fit 6 kicks into an
arm cycle, but for me that's no problem at all. In fact, I would guess
that I typically kick 8 times per cycle (don't know for sure; maybe
I'll pay closer attention today). They aren't vigorous kicks (say, the
way I would do when going all-out with a kickboard), but they are
kicks.

Maybe my arms are spinning too slowly, but this seems to be the
natural energy-conserving mode that I gravitate toward: long strokes,
with a small amount of rest/glide, leaving plenty of time for several
easy-to-moderate kicks. If I speed up the arm frequency, I do swim
faster, but I can't maintain such a pace for distances beyond, say, a
quarter mile.

Chief S.
  #29  
Old September 19th 03, 01:44 AM
DaKitty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories


"DrClean" wrote in message
...

"4precious" wrote in message
om...
"DrClean" wrote in message

...
"Madelaine" wrote in message
...
Dory wrote:
(4precious) wrote in message
. com...


The jury is still out on what you are stating, Dr. Clean, and it
wouldn't apply particuarly well to swimming anyways.

Just to catch people up - at lower exertion rates, the body is better
able to utilize fats. At higher exertion rates, the body uses less
fats and instead burns glycogen stores that are in the muscles. So
there is a school of thought that says working out at a moderate level
is better if your goal is to burn fat. However, studies haven't
really backed this idea up. That's simply because if you are working
out harder, you are burning more calories in a given length of time.
At a higher level of exertion, the muscles may not be able to directly
burn lipids in the blood stream, but when the glycogen stores are
replenished after the workout, guess what? The fat stores are tapped
at that point.

The other problem with your post relates to swimming as the activity.
Arms are not well equipped to burn fat at any levels of exertion.
They are much different than the legs in that respect. So the whole
notion of swimming at a slow pace to better facilitate burning fat may
not even exist, and certainly not to the degree that lower body
exercise makes that happen.

Eric


There's no question of doubt that if you work harder, for a given amount

of
time, you will burn more calories than if you saunter along - hence lose
more weight. However, the title to the post is what I was commenting on -

as
it has to be wrong.

If you look at triathlon/cycling/running training the principle of early
season base trainng is linked with teaching your body to burn fat not
glycogen. Lower exertion rates for a longer period of time. I haven't seen
any studies of long distance swimming and assume studies are harder,

because
swimmers don't really consider themselves long distance athletes and it's
hard to take measurements in the water, but I would imagine the principle
remains the same.

Racing swimmers however, probably don't need to invoke a fat burning

energy
system as their efforts never deplete them of glycogen like in the three
sports above.


I'd like to see you race 1500M without dipping into fat burning.



  #30  
Old September 19th 03, 01:45 AM
DaKitty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories

Less efficient will make you slower than you were.
Slower is also a very relative term.

"DrClean" wrote in message
...
Yes but the title says "Swim Slower" not "Swim Less Efficiently".
--
DrClean
www.DrClean.co.uk
The Best Fabric Cleaning Resource on the Web
"Colin Priest" wrote in message
...
The title doesn't have to be wrong. If you swim slower because you

change
to
a less efficient stroke (in this case by kicking more when you have an
inefficient kick), then you will burn more calories.

"DrClean" wrote in message
...

"4precious" wrote in message
om...
"DrClean" wrote in message
...
"Madelaine" wrote in message
...
Dory wrote:
(4precious) wrote in message
. com...


The jury is still out on what you are stating, Dr. Clean, and it
wouldn't apply particuarly well to swimming anyways.

Just to catch people up - at lower exertion rates, the body is

better
able to utilize fats. At higher exertion rates, the body uses less
fats and instead burns glycogen stores that are in the muscles. So
there is a school of thought that says working out at a moderate

level
is better if your goal is to burn fat. However, studies haven't
really backed this idea up. That's simply because if you are

working
out harder, you are burning more calories in a given length of time.
At a higher level of exertion, the muscles may not be able to

directly
burn lipids in the blood stream, but when the glycogen stores are
replenished after the workout, guess what? The fat stores are

tapped
at that point.

The other problem with your post relates to swimming as the

activity.
Arms are not well equipped to burn fat at any levels of exertion.
They are much different than the legs in that respect. So the whole
notion of swimming at a slow pace to better facilitate burning fat

may
not even exist, and certainly not to the degree that lower body
exercise makes that happen.

Eric

There's no question of doubt that if you work harder, for a given

amount
of
time, you will burn more calories than if you saunter along - hence

lose
more weight. However, the title to the post is what I was commenting

on -
as
it has to be wrong.

If you look at triathlon/cycling/running training the principle of

early
season base trainng is linked with teaching your body to burn fat not
glycogen. Lower exertion rates for a longer period of time. I haven't

seen
any studies of long distance swimming and assume studies are harder,

because
swimmers don't really consider themselves long distance athletes and

it's
hard to take measurements in the water, but I would imagine the

principle
remains the same.

Racing swimmers however, probably don't need to invoke a fat burning

energy
system as their efforts never deplete them of glycogen like in the

three
sports above.
--
DrClean
www.DrClean.co.uk
The Best Fabric Cleaning Resource on the Web









 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help! 800cal/day = good diet or ED? "Eat less, do more" not working? VLCD trap? vlcd_hell Weights 126 February 7th 04 01:21 AM
Nutrition Question John M. Williams Weights 117 September 12th 03 04:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.