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

Swimming ---Is Weight Loss Possible?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 23rd 04, 09:00 PM
RECNEPS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #2  
Old December 23rd 04, 09:12 PM
jtaylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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).


  #3  
Old December 25th 04, 05:43 AM
Jason O'Rourke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #4  
Old December 25th 04, 06:10 PM
jtaylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #5  
Old December 25th 04, 08:59 PM
Steve Freides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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





  #6  
Old December 25th 04, 11:31 PM
Jason O'Rourke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve Freides wrote:
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?)


Try doing a sprint event sometime, Steve. Even with the tiny legs, it's pretty
harsh on the body just doing such simple tasks as changing shoes, and then making
the body do a very different activity. In the first transition you shift from
being horizonal to being vertical again. The blood circulation has to change
substantially. And in the second, your legs feel like bricks as you try to run
after a long spell of cycling.

Think about how fast your individual splits would be if you sat for 20 minutes
in transition. I probably average about 2.5 minutes for T1, 1.5 minutes for T2,
which includes the time getting in and out of the transition zone. I might
benefit from slowing it down a bit, but you got to penalize triathletes for it.

I've never done a relay, mostly because the entry fees don't get much cheaper.
It definitely changes your strategy though - no need to start relaxing at the
end of the swim or the ride.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
  #8  
Old December 25th 04, 11:23 PM
Jason O'Rourke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #9  
Old December 26th 04, 04:12 AM
DaKitty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jason O'Rourke" wrote in message
...
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.


Doesn't sound like you put in a ton of effort into your swim.
I can swim a 500Y, and have a heart rate of 170 or 180... and most people in
our workout group can do the same.
Sounds like your swim resembles a light jog, rather than a serious swim.


  #10  
Old December 26th 04, 04:08 AM
DaKitty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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. 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


As far as I know, that is not true.


 




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
My Weight loss Story Jenny General 3 May 7th 04 06:39 PM
My Weight loss Story Jenny Weights 24 April 29th 04 05:09 PM
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
Why do the BBing Mags keep lying about weights? Robert Schuh Weights 41 November 9th 03 10:43 PM
training and weight loss (and a few other questions) Mike Charles Triathalon 9 August 18th 03 09:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.