Are the way you stroke with your right arm supposed to be semetrical with the way you stroke with your left arm, because I stroke in a different pattern with my left arm than with my right, I suppose that's normal. Also is swimming considered an anerobic or aerobic sport or both?
Parents
Former Member
Originally posted by amber pigman
... whereas aerobic and anerobic depend on the intensity not the sport.
That's still not a very good way to look at it.
The anaerobic component is normally more reliant on resistance against the muscles than intensity. In swimming, it is true that you normally get more anaerobic exercise from a higher intensity workout. However, I have to bring up weightlifting again, which doesn't have to be an intense, fast workout to be highly anaerobic. To understand how aerobic and anaerobic exercise works, you can't just dismiss an entire type of exercise from the discussion just because it doesn't fit your argument. A good explanation of the two processes will cover all types of exercise.
Consider that if you were to swim in a substance with more resistance than water, your workout would become more anaerobic without any attempt to swim faster. If you were to swim in a pool of molasses, your workout would be anaerobic regardless of the intensity, because your muscles would have to strain against the drag in that muck. The exertion during each stroke would use stored glycogen in the muscles for power, anaerobically, even if you were to swim at a very slow pace. Likewise, if you were to swim in normal water wearing a suit or some device that creates a significant amount of drag, your muscles would use more anaerobic power to work against it.
Also, comparing swimming with running is a bit misleading. Running does not involve the amount of resistance against the muscles that swimming does. Runners do not get the same anaerobic benefits that swimmers get, because they are not pushing directly against something. The closest they get is when they run uphill or up stairs.
Running also does not use the same muscles as swimming, and that difference is important. The upper body muscles have evolved differently from those in the lower body. Upper body muscles have developed for quick bursts of controlled activity, relying on the stored glycogen to power these quick bursts. Any activity with them will be highly anaerobic by their very evolution. Even with prolonged, repeated action, these muscles will try to power themselves anaerobically.
Lower body muscles, in contrast, have developed to use less glycogen and rely more on oxygen from the bloodstream. These muscles very quickly switch over from their initial reliance on anaerobic power to aerobic power. It makes sense, if you think about early humans having to walk for transportation: if your lower body muscles had to rely on anaerobic power, you wouldn't be able to go very far before you'd run out of energy and have to rest. As we stand, a human in reasonably good shape can walk, or even run, pretty large distances.
To get back to a predominantly anaerobic exercise when running, you have to run hard enough that the muscles require more oxygen than the bloodstream can provide, so that they pull glycogen from the muscles, as Jean described. While we often do the same thing with swimming, you don't have to push that far to get a significant anaerobic workout, simply because the upper body muscles are already trying to power themselves anaerobically and already pushing against resistance that is minimal in running or walking.
There are two big pieces of physical evidence readily available to most of us that point out this difference between swimming and running. First is hunger. When you burn glycogen out of your muscles, the body wants to replace it as quickly as possible in case you need another burst of energy soon, so signals are sent to the stomach to contract with hunger pangs. You'll probably crave carbohydrates, which the body will convert to glycogen and store in the muscles. Even distance swimmers often feel that hunger after a workout.
Exercise that is primarily aerobic, in contrast, does not burn as much glycogen. Instead, the body taps into its fat reserves. As long as it is actively drawing on body fat, the body thinks it is has its energy needs satisfied and doesn't ask for food. This is why runners usually do not feel hungry after a run; their bodies don't think they need food.
The second big piece of evidence is muscle mass. Anaerobic activity builds muscle, where aerobic activity does not. You can look at runners and swimmers and see that very phenomenon. How often do you see avid swimmers with arms as skinny, in comparison, as runners' legs?
The two activities are only really similar in their aerobic component. Drawing parallels between them to explain the aerobic and anaerobic components of swimming is really not that useful without a better understanding of the entire process.
Originally posted by amber pigman
... whereas aerobic and anerobic depend on the intensity not the sport.
That's still not a very good way to look at it.
The anaerobic component is normally more reliant on resistance against the muscles than intensity. In swimming, it is true that you normally get more anaerobic exercise from a higher intensity workout. However, I have to bring up weightlifting again, which doesn't have to be an intense, fast workout to be highly anaerobic. To understand how aerobic and anaerobic exercise works, you can't just dismiss an entire type of exercise from the discussion just because it doesn't fit your argument. A good explanation of the two processes will cover all types of exercise.
Consider that if you were to swim in a substance with more resistance than water, your workout would become more anaerobic without any attempt to swim faster. If you were to swim in a pool of molasses, your workout would be anaerobic regardless of the intensity, because your muscles would have to strain against the drag in that muck. The exertion during each stroke would use stored glycogen in the muscles for power, anaerobically, even if you were to swim at a very slow pace. Likewise, if you were to swim in normal water wearing a suit or some device that creates a significant amount of drag, your muscles would use more anaerobic power to work against it.
Also, comparing swimming with running is a bit misleading. Running does not involve the amount of resistance against the muscles that swimming does. Runners do not get the same anaerobic benefits that swimmers get, because they are not pushing directly against something. The closest they get is when they run uphill or up stairs.
Running also does not use the same muscles as swimming, and that difference is important. The upper body muscles have evolved differently from those in the lower body. Upper body muscles have developed for quick bursts of controlled activity, relying on the stored glycogen to power these quick bursts. Any activity with them will be highly anaerobic by their very evolution. Even with prolonged, repeated action, these muscles will try to power themselves anaerobically.
Lower body muscles, in contrast, have developed to use less glycogen and rely more on oxygen from the bloodstream. These muscles very quickly switch over from their initial reliance on anaerobic power to aerobic power. It makes sense, if you think about early humans having to walk for transportation: if your lower body muscles had to rely on anaerobic power, you wouldn't be able to go very far before you'd run out of energy and have to rest. As we stand, a human in reasonably good shape can walk, or even run, pretty large distances.
To get back to a predominantly anaerobic exercise when running, you have to run hard enough that the muscles require more oxygen than the bloodstream can provide, so that they pull glycogen from the muscles, as Jean described. While we often do the same thing with swimming, you don't have to push that far to get a significant anaerobic workout, simply because the upper body muscles are already trying to power themselves anaerobically and already pushing against resistance that is minimal in running or walking.
There are two big pieces of physical evidence readily available to most of us that point out this difference between swimming and running. First is hunger. When you burn glycogen out of your muscles, the body wants to replace it as quickly as possible in case you need another burst of energy soon, so signals are sent to the stomach to contract with hunger pangs. You'll probably crave carbohydrates, which the body will convert to glycogen and store in the muscles. Even distance swimmers often feel that hunger after a workout.
Exercise that is primarily aerobic, in contrast, does not burn as much glycogen. Instead, the body taps into its fat reserves. As long as it is actively drawing on body fat, the body thinks it is has its energy needs satisfied and doesn't ask for food. This is why runners usually do not feel hungry after a run; their bodies don't think they need food.
The second big piece of evidence is muscle mass. Anaerobic activity builds muscle, where aerobic activity does not. You can look at runners and swimmers and see that very phenomenon. How often do you see avid swimmers with arms as skinny, in comparison, as runners' legs?
The two activities are only really similar in their aerobic component. Drawing parallels between them to explain the aerobic and anaerobic components of swimming is really not that useful without a better understanding of the entire process.
