The other day, as I was being thrashed by a heavy lap swimmer, I once again pondered the difference between a swimmers body and a runners body. I have seen quite a few husky guys, carrying quite a bit of extra weight, who are also very good swimmers. On the other hand, you won't see runners who are carrying extra weight (unless they have just begun running). I think that there maybe a chicken-egg thing here (heavier guys tend not to go in for distance running) but I think that there are other considerations. One of them is that swimming tends to arouse appetite while running tends to suppress appetite.
Having said all that, I just can't yearn for a runners body, even though I would love to drop 5 kgs. I just do not want a body with no arms or shoulders. Also, maybe it's me, but this guy looks like an anorexic model:
profile.ak.fbcdn.net/.../41576_284212555090_8345297_n.jpg
that type of body is not realistic and certainly not sustainable for almost all adult men who are not full time athletes and who live in the real (job, family) world.
I'm probably not going to swim as fast as Michael Phelps, either, but that doesn't make me demean his accomplishments.
I don't think it's fair to compare this to a female supermodel, either. Supermodels are almost always underweight and not necessarily even fit. This guy is definitely fit and does not appear underweight to me. He had to work hard to look like that.
I don't think I've seen that issue of Runner's World yet, but they usually rotate their covers between profiling elite athletes and everyday athletes. I think they provide directions on how to nominate yourself or someone else for a cover shot. For both they have a story on the athlete, their favorite run, a snapshot of their training plan, diet, etc. Have you looked at the profile of this guy?
That said, I certainly don't think a body like that is totally unrealistic. But as others have said, we've gotten used to seeing 40 year old guys who are 6 foot tall weighing 225 or more here in the US.
With a little structure and discipline, plus a dose of good genes, nearly anyone is capable of looking like that.
Agreed. Years ago I had a lifeguard working for me, college kid who wrestled during the school year. He had a six pack that was the envy of every guy at the pool, and he did little to maintain it during the summer, he wasn't a glutton by any means but he'd eat pizza and drink beer... and still had amazing abs. I never understood it until his dad came in for a swim, 44 years old with gorgeous abs. Good genes indeed. :D
As a general and totally subjective stereotype I'd say that women swimmers are more attractive than women runners and much more attractive than sedentary women.
You are a very, very wise man! ;) :D
I'm probably not going to swim as fast as Michael Phelps, either, but that doesn't make me demean his accomplishments.
I don't think it's fair to compare this to a female supermodel, either. Supermodels are almost always underweight and not necessarily even fit. This guy is definitely fit and does not appear underweight to me. He had to work hard to look like that.
I can't see the parallel. Phelps is the greatest swimmer of all time and his accomplishments are fully documented. The cover guy may or may not be an accomplished athlete and his greatest proven attribute is his 6 pack. If that's what you mean by an "accomplishment" then I guess your'e right.
The parallel is that--to borrow your words--Michael Phelps' accomplishments are "not realistic" to most swimmers, either, but that doesn't make us pooh-pooh them. Besides, who are we to say that achieving six-pack abs is somehow a less worthy achievement than swimming up and down a pool really fast? The bottom line is I can't understand why you consider this to be an unhealthy look.
I don't think I've seen that issue of Runner's World yet, but they usually rotate their covers between profiling elite athletes and everyday athletes. I think they provide directions on how to nominate yourself or someone else for a cover shot. For both they have a story on the athlete, their favorite run, a snapshot of their training plan, diet, etc. Have you looked at the profile of this guy?
That said, I certainly don't think a body like that is totally unrealistic. But as others have said, we've gotten used to seeing 40 year old guys who are 6 foot tall weighing 225 or more here in the US.
With a little structure and discipline, plus a dose of good genes, nearly anyone is capable of looking like that.
Okay, so wouldn't it seem that a runner is going to pound the living cr%p out of their knees, ankles and feet if they run with too much weight?
Whereas, a swimmer has water helping to displace their weight, making it a bit easier on the key joints?
Exactly, it's almost natural selection - you won't last long running if you are carrying excess weight. Visualize or try this:
Step 1: Get two bowling balls
Step 2: Secure one in a back-pack and the other in a front baby-pack
Step 3: Run and see how it feels after maybe .5 miles
Two bowling balls weigh about 32 pounds and that's probably less than many are over an ideal weight for running. To run you have to get rid of extra weight or self-destruct, as in carrying bowling balls. Those distance Kenyan runners are bean poles for a reason.
Probably not a good idea to swim with bowling balls strapped on, but your weight in a pool due to bouyancy is about 1/5, so the two bowling balls weigh only 6 pounds, and at 190 pounds, I'm like 38 pounds in the water.
Additionally, running encounters comparativley little resistance. Drag or resistance in the water to swimming is much greater; it's directly related to the streamlined form and exposed surface area, thus the emphasis on streamling and reducing resistance with shark skin like new suits.
Okay, so wouldn't it seem that a runner is going to pound the living cr%p out of their knees, ankles and feet if they run with too much weight?
Whereas, a swimmer has water helping to displace their weight, making it a bit easier on the key joints?
