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
  #1  
Old September 12th 03, 05:34 PM
4precious
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories

Companies seem to be forever marketing stuff with catchy slogans that
can't possibly be true. Like how you can get slim doing very modest
exercise for a few minutes three times a week.

But the title of this post IS true!

This is all old ground for the user group, but I still found it
interesting.

Given all the interest lately in kick times, swim ratios to kick
ratios, etc. I resolved to start using a 6-beat kick for all my
swimming. It's not the first time I've made that vow. I figured I
would start by simply using 6 tiny kicks, and as I got better
conditioned, I would start emphasizing every third beat with a bigger
downbeat where the power kicks are in a typical 2-beat kick. (If you
look at Donald Graft's video site you can see Diana Munz using that
pattern.) And if I ever got into really good shape, I would be
nailing all 6.

So what happened. Well, I embarked on the latest kick adventure on
the distance day. When you're swimming 6 500's in a row, that's not
an easy day to start kicking a lot more.

So of course I was probably 10-20% slower than usual. Maybe it's due
to my lack of fitness kicking, or not having the balance down. As
Larry has pointed out, conventional swim doctrine these days says that
lactate produced by the arms can be burned by the legs. So I kept
telling myself to keep that "lactate burning factory" below the belt
going even when my legs started feeling like lead. So I started off
leading a lane of 3 or 4 swimmers, the guy behind would "tickle my
toes" somewhere in the set, so I'd realize I was holding him up and
let him through. Of course by the end I was dead-last in the lane and
suffering like a dog. I then looked over at lane 1, where there are
men and women who swim on the University team going up and down the
pool, and none of them have a 6-beat.

I eat nearly the same thing everyday, but my stomach was growling like
crazy after so much kicking. Empirical proof to me that all the
studies indicating that losing weight running is a great idea, while
trying to lose weight swimming can be a tough proposition.

So I figure the only way to start kicking is drop down one lane or two
in speed in the pool, swim for at least 6 weeks, and then see if it's
worth continuing with that style. But would 6 weeks even make much of
a difference? Elite swimmers have literally a decade of kickboard
history in their legs.

But for now I think I'll back to swimming the way a lot of rec
swimmers do - deep, straight armed catch on both sides to maintain
momentum, and very little kicking.


If anyone has success morphing into a kicker, I'd like to hear how
they did it.

Eric
  #2  
Old September 12th 03, 06:03 PM
DaKitty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories


"4precious" wrote in message
om...
Companies seem to be forever marketing stuff with catchy slogans that
can't possibly be true. Like how you can get slim doing very modest
exercise for a few minutes three times a week.

But the title of this post IS true!

This is all old ground for the user group, but I still found it
interesting.

Given all the interest lately in kick times, swim ratios to kick
ratios, etc. I resolved to start using a 6-beat kick for all my
swimming. It's not the first time I've made that vow. I figured I
would start by simply using 6 tiny kicks, and as I got better
conditioned, I would start emphasizing every third beat with a bigger
downbeat where the power kicks are in a typical 2-beat kick. (If you
look at Donald Graft's video site you can see Diana Munz using that
pattern.) And if I ever got into really good shape, I would be
nailing all 6.

So what happened. Well, I embarked on the latest kick adventure on
the distance day. When you're swimming 6 500's in a row, that's not
an easy day to start kicking a lot more.

So of course I was probably 10-20% slower than usual. Maybe it's due
to my lack of fitness kicking, or not having the balance down. As
Larry has pointed out, conventional swim doctrine these days says that
lactate produced by the arms can be burned by the legs. So I kept
telling myself to keep that "lactate burning factory" below the belt
going even when my legs started feeling like lead. So I started off
leading a lane of 3 or 4 swimmers, the guy behind would "tickle my
toes" somewhere in the set, so I'd realize I was holding him up and
let him through. Of course by the end I was dead-last in the lane and
suffering like a dog. I then looked over at lane 1, where there are
men and women who swim on the University team going up and down the
pool, and none of them have a 6-beat.

I eat nearly the same thing everyday, but my stomach was growling like
crazy after so much kicking. Empirical proof to me that all the
studies indicating that losing weight running is a great idea, while
trying to lose weight swimming can be a tough proposition.

So I figure the only way to start kicking is drop down one lane or two
in speed in the pool, swim for at least 6 weeks, and then see if it's
worth continuing with that style. But would 6 weeks even make much of
a difference? Elite swimmers have literally a decade of kickboard
history in their legs.

But for now I think I'll back to swimming the way a lot of rec
swimmers do - deep, straight armed catch on both sides to maintain
momentum, and very little kicking.


If anyone has success morphing into a kicker, I'd like to hear how
they did it.

Eric


I kick a lot, those big muscles burn a LOT of calories.
Especially with my zoomers on.
Swimming is not arms only kind of a sport.

My kick is not very propulsive yet, but I'm noticing that changing too.
Right now, when I'm kicking, even if it doesn't move me forward a whole lot,
I'm thinking, "burn baby burn" (calories)... with that "disco inferno" song
in my head for pace.

I lost close to 15 pounds in 8 weeks of swimming.
If you do it right, swimming burns about 30-40% more calories than running.
If you leave your legs out, you're probably cutting out good 60-70% of the
calories you could be burning during a swim. Just think, the bigger the
muscle mass that you're making move, the more calories get burned.

I hear that most runners have trouble adapting to swimming. At least that's
what several of my triathlete friends tell me.

I can swim a mile or two, quite easily, I cant run a mile. hell, I can't
even run 1/4 of a mile without my cardio seizing and my pulse going up over
200.
My cardio has a long way to go. Fast kicking and swimming sprints exercises
are working on my cardio.



  #3  
Old September 12th 03, 06:35 PM
nelsonc2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories

You might want to try biking. It will help you lose the weight you want and
get your legs and butt into the shape necessary to sustain kicking
throughout your swim workouts.

Casey
"4precious" wrote in message
om...
Companies seem to be forever marketing stuff with catchy slogans that
can't possibly be true. Like how you can get slim doing very modest
exercise for a few minutes three times a week.

But the title of this post IS true!

This is all old ground for the user group, but I still found it
interesting.

Given all the interest lately in kick times, swim ratios to kick
ratios, etc. I resolved to start using a 6-beat kick for all my
swimming. It's not the first time I've made that vow. I figured I
would start by simply using 6 tiny kicks, and as I got better
conditioned, I would start emphasizing every third beat with a bigger
downbeat where the power kicks are in a typical 2-beat kick. (If you
look at Donald Graft's video site you can see Diana Munz using that
pattern.) And if I ever got into really good shape, I would be
nailing all 6.

So what happened. Well, I embarked on the latest kick adventure on
the distance day. When you're swimming 6 500's in a row, that's not
an easy day to start kicking a lot more.

So of course I was probably 10-20% slower than usual. Maybe it's due
to my lack of fitness kicking, or not having the balance down. As
Larry has pointed out, conventional swim doctrine these days says that
lactate produced by the arms can be burned by the legs. So I kept
telling myself to keep that "lactate burning factory" below the belt
going even when my legs started feeling like lead. So I started off
leading a lane of 3 or 4 swimmers, the guy behind would "tickle my
toes" somewhere in the set, so I'd realize I was holding him up and
let him through. Of course by the end I was dead-last in the lane and
suffering like a dog. I then looked over at lane 1, where there are
men and women who swim on the University team going up and down the
pool, and none of them have a 6-beat.

I eat nearly the same thing everyday, but my stomach was growling like
crazy after so much kicking. Empirical proof to me that all the
studies indicating that losing weight running is a great idea, while
trying to lose weight swimming can be a tough proposition.

So I figure the only way to start kicking is drop down one lane or two
in speed in the pool, swim for at least 6 weeks, and then see if it's
worth continuing with that style. But would 6 weeks even make much of
a difference? Elite swimmers have literally a decade of kickboard
history in their legs.

But for now I think I'll back to swimming the way a lot of rec
swimmers do - deep, straight armed catch on both sides to maintain
momentum, and very little kicking.


If anyone has success morphing into a kicker, I'd like to hear how
they did it.

Eric



  #4  
Old September 12th 03, 08:31 PM
Madelaine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories

4precious wrote:
SNIP

But for now I think I'll back to swimming the way a lot of rec
swimmers do - deep, straight armed catch on both sides to maintain
momentum, and very little kicking.


If anyone has success morphing into a kicker, I'd like to hear how
they did it.

Eric


While I wouldn't say I've morphed into a kicker, my kicking has improved
a lot through practicing by doing kicking-only drills on my back.
According to the college swimmer who coaches/tutors me, most people on
their stomach only use half the kick, kicking on your back makes you
kick up and down on every kick.

I enjoy kicking-only drills a lot more than stroke-only drills.

My kicking drills make up 20% of my practice, but I'm not swimming long
distances yet.

Since I have weird, short, curvy feet, if I can improve my kicking,
anyone can.
Madelaine

  #5  
Old September 12th 03, 08:57 PM
DaKitty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories


"Madelaine" wrote in message
...
4precious wrote:
SNIP

But for now I think I'll back to swimming the way a lot of rec
swimmers do - deep, straight armed catch on both sides to maintain
momentum, and very little kicking.


If anyone has success morphing into a kicker, I'd like to hear how
they did it.

Eric


While I wouldn't say I've morphed into a kicker, my kicking has improved
a lot through practicing by doing kicking-only drills on my back.


I love those. At the moment, I feel a lot more balanced and coordinated
doing the backstroke, rather than freestyle.
Maybe that will turn out to be my specialty.

According to the college swimmer who coaches/tutors me, most people on
their stomach only use half the kick, kicking on your back makes you
kick up and down on every kick.


Thinking about how my kick works, I have to agree with that.
I like verticals too.
Sometimes in betweeen sets I do a 10-15 second vertical kick, just to remind
muself of the form. I tend to forget I have abs.

I enjoy kicking-only drills a lot more than stroke-only drills.


Same here

My kicking drills make up 20% of my practice, but I'm not swimming long
distances yet.

Since I have weird, short, curvy feet, if I can improve my kicking,
anyone can.
Madelaine


Glad to hear that! I'm 5' 9" tall and have only size 7 feet with not so
flexible (yet) ankles.
I'm hoping there's hope!

Actually, I noticed my ankle flexibility improving in last 2-3 weeks.



  #7  
Old September 13th 03, 01:07 AM
Jason O'Rourke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories

Dory wrote:
Friedman, who suggests that "exercise is more often a marker of health
than its cause. Well, when you're swimming, you for sure aren't
eating and so you are not gaining those calories at least. The longer
you stay in the water, kicking or not, the fewer calories you will
consume.


Unless I really wear myself out, I'm eating a ton afterwards.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
  #8  
Old September 13th 03, 06:20 PM
Peter Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories

In article P%[email protected],
"DaKitty" wrote:

I kick a lot, those big muscles burn a LOT of calories.
Especially with my zoomers on.
Swimming is not arms only kind of a sport.



Usually I just do some freestyle, but my physio has told me to do some
backstroke. I was totally rubbish to start with, but I am starting to
get better now. I find that I use my legs a lot more in backstroke. It
really takes it out of me. As a result, I find I use my legs a lot more
in freestyle now.

As for the title of this message thread, I was reading on a website the
other day (I'll try to find the link now) an article which stated the
following (as best as can be remembered).

While it is true saying that exercising slower burns a higher percentage
of fat, the total amount of energy being used is lower as well. If you
exercise as hard as you can, while the percentage of fat being burned
drops, you are using more energy overall. The net result is that you end
up burning more fat excercising harder.

pete


--
Please remove no_spam_ to respond directly by e-mail

  #9  
Old September 13th 03, 09:06 PM
DaKitty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories


"Peter Brown" wrote in message
news
In article P%[email protected],
"DaKitty" wrote:

I kick a lot, those big muscles burn a LOT of calories.
Especially with my zoomers on.
Swimming is not arms only kind of a sport.



Usually I just do some freestyle, but my physio has told me to do some
backstroke. I was totally rubbish to start with, but I am starting to
get better now. I find that I use my legs a lot more in backstroke. It
really takes it out of me. As a result, I find I use my legs a lot more
in freestyle now.


You know, I overheard a coach say something to that effect just couple of
days ago... Paraphrasing 'most people don't push their kick in both
directions, up and doen, unless they're kicking on their backs or
vertically" That drew my attention to my own kick... and oh, my, was it
true in my case!

As for the title of this message thread, I was reading on a website the
other day (I'll try to find the link now) an article which stated the
following (as best as can be remembered).

While it is true saying that exercising slower burns a higher percentage
of fat, the total amount of energy being used is lower as well. If you
exercise as hard as you can, while the percentage of fat being burned
drops, you are using more energy overall. The net result is that you end
up burning more fat excercising harder.


Yes, that is more or less correct.
One has to be careful with "how hard"... because if you push way too hard,
you'll end up wearing yourself out and stopping long before you would if the
intensity was a little bit lower. And when I say "long before" I don't mean
time wise, I mean by the total amount of the energy expended"

For example, in my case, make me do 6x100m sprints (which in my case would
result in a time of maybe 1:55), and I'll wiped out for the rest of the day.
Or make me swim 3000 or 4000m at about 2:15 pace, no problem. I'd still be
worn out at the end, but I will have expended quite bit more total energy.

Or an example with Running vs. Fast Walking, running a mile may use up close
to the same amount of calories as fastwalking a mile. Running it just allows
you to do it faster and more often. But, in my case, I can walk 6 or 7 miles
in 2-2.5 hours. I can't run a mile. Or if I tried to run too much, during
the 7 mile walk or run/walk, it would make it impossible to do the full 7
miles, and therefore lower the total amount of energy burned.

But, if your exercise is limited by time... the higher intensity, the more
calories burned. So if you only have an hour, you'd want to go as hard as
you can within that hour, pacing yourself so that you don't wear yourself
out before the hour is over. You want to be close to worn out at the end. If
you have too much energy at the end, you'd know to push little harder next
time. So, running for an hour WILL use up more energy than walking for an
hour. (And running will cover a greater distance)

As for the fat burning, it usually doesn't kick in until after the other
fuels in the body are used up, and it usually happens about 10-20 minutes
into a moderate exercise. So you want to be sure that you pace yourself at
the intensity that will allow you to exercise that long.
Also, if the goal of your exercise is to burn fat, then you're not going to
want to sip on sports drinks during exercise, because you're replenishing
the glycogen, and as soon as it's there, your body will want to switch to
using it, instead of fat. This is good for competitions and sprints, because
it gives you an energy boos, but if you want to burn fat, then you have to
let your body hit that performance wall, when it gets a little bit harder,
and keep going. Mentally and physically, that is more possible when you
lower the intensity just a tad.

There is some more finesse to it to gain few extra percentage points in
maximizing your fat burning, or maximizing your performance, but in general
terms, the above will work quite well. In my case, If I'm burning 90% of the
100% of the fat I could be burning, vs. burning 0%, I'm quite content with
90%. The other 10% is fine tuning the minutia. Probably something only the
very top, elite athletes need to worry about, you know, like body builders,
to whom it's important to burn up the last 2 oz. of fat. For a healthy
lifestyle and competing for fun and personal interest (as opposed for
endorsements), the general guidelines work quite well.

It's always a balance between going too hard, and not hard enough.



  #10  
Old September 14th 03, 01:51 AM
Mark C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Swim Slower and Burn More Calories

About the kicking: in my internet travels I found very interesting advice
about just that on the http://www.zoomers.net/ site.

Mark

"DaKitty" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"Peter Brown" wrote in message
news
In article P%[email protected],
"DaKitty" wrote:

I kick a lot, those big muscles burn a LOT of calories.
Especially with my zoomers on.
Swimming is not arms only kind of a sport.



Usually I just do some freestyle, but my physio has told me to do some
backstroke. I was totally rubbish to start with, but I am starting to
get better now. I find that I use my legs a lot more in backstroke. It
really takes it out of me. As a result, I find I use my legs a lot more
in freestyle now.


You know, I overheard a coach say something to that effect just couple of
days ago... Paraphrasing 'most people don't push their kick in both
directions, up and doen, unless they're kicking on their backs or
vertically" That drew my attention to my own kick... and oh, my, was it
true in my case!

As for the title of this message thread, I was reading on a website the
other day (I'll try to find the link now) an article which stated the
following (as best as can be remembered).

While it is true saying that exercising slower burns a higher percentage
of fat, the total amount of energy being used is lower as well. If you
exercise as hard as you can, while the percentage of fat being burned
drops, you are using more energy overall. The net result is that you end
up burning more fat excercising harder.


Yes, that is more or less correct.
One has to be careful with "how hard"... because if you push way too hard,
you'll end up wearing yourself out and stopping long before you would if

the
intensity was a little bit lower. And when I say "long before" I don't

mean
time wise, I mean by the total amount of the energy expended"

For example, in my case, make me do 6x100m sprints (which in my case would
result in a time of maybe 1:55), and I'll wiped out for the rest of the

day.
Or make me swim 3000 or 4000m at about 2:15 pace, no problem. I'd still be
worn out at the end, but I will have expended quite bit more total energy.

Or an example with Running vs. Fast Walking, running a mile may use up

close
to the same amount of calories as fastwalking a mile. Running it just

allows
you to do it faster and more often. But, in my case, I can walk 6 or 7

miles
in 2-2.5 hours. I can't run a mile. Or if I tried to run too much, during
the 7 mile walk or run/walk, it would make it impossible to do the full 7
miles, and therefore lower the total amount of energy burned.

But, if your exercise is limited by time... the higher intensity, the more
calories burned. So if you only have an hour, you'd want to go as hard as
you can within that hour, pacing yourself so that you don't wear yourself
out before the hour is over. You want to be close to worn out at the end.

If
you have too much energy at the end, you'd know to push little harder next
time. So, running for an hour WILL use up more energy than walking for an
hour. (And running will cover a greater distance)

As for the fat burning, it usually doesn't kick in until after the other
fuels in the body are used up, and it usually happens about 10-20 minutes
into a moderate exercise. So you want to be sure that you pace yourself at
the intensity that will allow you to exercise that long.
Also, if the goal of your exercise is to burn fat, then you're not going

to
want to sip on sports drinks during exercise, because you're replenishing
the glycogen, and as soon as it's there, your body will want to switch to
using it, instead of fat. This is good for competitions and sprints,

because
it gives you an energy boos, but if you want to burn fat, then you have to
let your body hit that performance wall, when it gets a little bit harder,
and keep going. Mentally and physically, that is more possible when you
lower the intensity just a tad.

There is some more finesse to it to gain few extra percentage points in
maximizing your fat burning, or maximizing your performance, but in

general
terms, the above will work quite well. In my case, If I'm burning 90% of

the
100% of the fat I could be burning, vs. burning 0%, I'm quite content with
90%. The other 10% is fine tuning the minutia. Probably something only the
very top, elite athletes need to worry about, you know, like body

builders,
to whom it's important to burn up the last 2 oz. of fat. For a healthy
lifestyle and competing for fun and personal interest (as opposed for
endorsements), the general guidelines work quite well.

It's always a balance between going too hard, and not hard enough.





 




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 12:21 AM
Nutrition Question John M. Williams Weights 117 September 12th 03 03:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.