weight loss

Just to be clear with everyone, I agree that swimming is not only a great way to lose weight, but also just about the best all around exercise available. I'm not arguing for running, since I hate running and generally feel that an adult human shouldn't run unless he's being chased. Still, if weight loss is your most immediate goal, lower body exercise is generally a more efficient way to metabolize fat without gaining muscle mass than upper body exercise. Originally posted by mattson You broke down the difference to (mostly) upper body vs lower body exercise. But when I use an ergometer or a Nordictrack, machines that would involve the upper body as well as the lower, my "hunger response" is the same as running. Evolution has optimized the white muscle for anaerobic power. That doesn't mean that white muscle won't metabolize fat; it MUST be able to switch over from anaerobic power to aerobic power in order to sustain muscle activity. In fact, most physical activities present a combination of aerobic and anaerobic exercise. Running is more aerobic, but all you have to do is run up a hill to provide enough resistance to increase the anaerobic component. Weightlifting is mostly anaerobic, but while it would likely be dangerous to do so, you could increase the aerobic component by doing the reps as fast as possible. Swimming provides an almost perfect combination of aerobic and anaerobic activity: the sustained motion gives the aerobic component, while the resistance of the water provides the anaerobic component. Thus, your Nordictrack hunger response makes sense. It's a sustained activity with more of an aerobic component than anaerobic. Your body is powering itself off your fat reserves and suppresses the appetite because it doesn't think it needs immediate replacement of calories. If you think of it as a balance between the two types of exercise, the results of the aerobic activity are outweighing the results of the anaerobic component. Originally posted by mattson Would your argument change if you compared a sprinting running workout (muscle building) vs. a long distance moderate pace swim (aerobic)? I don't think so. While I can't personally attest to the effects of a sprinting running workout (since I'm not much of a runner), I do experience a difference in my hunger response between distance workouts and interval workouts in the pool. For example, I sometimes swim a 4000 to 5000m non-stop endurance workout, attempting to maintain a constant, reasonable pace throughout with my heart rate near its target level. When I get out of the pool, I generally have little desire to eat. When I have done this workout in the morning, on an empty stomach, I come out of the pool still hungry but unable to eat very much before feeling full. In contrast, when I swim intervals I am always hungry afterwards. The main set of my favorite workout is ten 100m IM on 2 minute intervals. My stomach usually starts growling soon after that set, and the rest of my workout has me thinking about what delicious things await me when I get out of the pool. (And yes, that response is the same when I've had a "full contact" workout with other swimmers kicking me in the sides. :D ) As you can see, I'm not saying that swimming doesn't burn fat or that running doesn't burn glycogen, nor am I saying that all swimming or running workouts affect the body the same way. What I'm saying is that, generally, our bodies have evolved to power the muscles in our upper and lower bodies differently to reflect the different kind of activities required of them, and that understanding this difference can help to understand why some types of exercise result in weight loss more quickly than others. Originally posted by mattson Similarly, the urge to "power nap" after a workout is independent of the type of exercise, what I've eaten, or whether or not I've eaten. I'm studying Japanese. Whenever I start a lesson, fifteen minutes into it I desperately want a power nap, but it has nothing to do with burning carbs either. I just mentioned wanting a nap after satisfying a carbohydrate craving as part of the explanation of what's happening in the body in that particular situation, not as an explanation of every narcoleptic fit. I just thought a lot of swimmers might be able to relate to that specific situation. Switching gears... Originally posted by exrunner The fundamental rule of weight loss is 3500 calorie deficit (surplus) = 1 pound weight loss (gain). This equation holds true whether your calorie expenditure is from swimming or running, and whether your calorie intake is in the form of pizza or alfalfa sprouts. The equation is also true whether your weight loss is from lean tissue or fat. While that may be a reasonable weight loss guideline at the basic level, it's really more complicated than that. The 3500 calorie number is the specific number of calories in a pound of fat. Muscle contains far fewer calories per pound, and muscle gain differs from muscle loss in the amount of calories absorbed or expended. For example, bodybuilders and weightlifters will tell you that you have to absorb an additional 2500 calories to gain a pound of muscle, but you only have to burn 500-600 calories to lose a pound of muscle if you get your diet screwed up. If your calorie deficit were to cause you to lose 3500 calories from muscle, your actual weight loss would be six to seven times greater than if you lost 3500 calories of fat. Therefore it is not true that your equation works whether your weight loss is from lean tissue or fat; it doesn't even out. The equation also doesn't hold true for different types or combinations of food, since it assumes that all calories consumed will be absorbed by the body. Whether fat is stored depends upon the body's insulin response. If there is more sugar in the bloodstream than the muscles can store, insulin is released, which then triggers storage of that excess sugar as fat. If it isn't stored in the muscles as glycogen or as fat from an insulin response, it's passed from the body. Some people are lucky enough to have an unusually low insulin response to everything they eat. You know them; they're the ones who seem to be able to eat anything and never gain a pound, even though they don't exercise that much. Don't you hate them? Whatever calories their bodies don't need are passed out of the body without being stored. These people specifically fly in the face of the that equation. Likewise, diabetics disprove the validity of that equation. One of the warning signs that diabetes has taken hold is weight gain. These weight changes can occur even when the diabetic has not changed his caloric intake or level of physical activity. What happens is that there's a change in insulin response in the body, and calories that before were passed out of the body as waste are being stored as fat in response to the higher insulin output. If 3500 calories really equalled a pound of fat in practice, a diabetic shouldn't gain weight at the onset of the disease unless he increased his caloric intake. Furthermore, the presence of protein in the diet affects the insulin response and drastically reduces the effectiveness of that formula. When the body attempts to digest protein and carbs at the same time, the protein slows the absorption of the carbohydrates and helps reduce the rate at which they hit the bloodstream as sugar. This in turn reduces the amount of insulin released, and the body stores less of the sugar as fat. Meanwhile, because the digestion of the carbs has been slowed, less of those calories are actually absorbed by the body before being passed on down the tube. Thus, 3500 calories consumed is not necessarily 3500 absorbed by the body, and 3500 calories lost doesn't necessarily equal a pound of weight. How much of it is absorbed or lost is dependent on what was eaten and what kind of tissue was involved. While it's attractive to try to simplify it down to a nice little formula that everyone can follow, the reality is that the human body is too complicated to be reduced to an equation.

Just to be clear with everyone, I agree that swimming is not only a great way to lose weight, but also just about the best all around exercise available. I'm not arguing for running, since I hate running and generally feel that an adult human shouldn't run unless he's being chased. Still, if weight loss is your most immediate goal, lower body exercise is generally a more efficient way to metabolize fat without gaining muscle mass than upper body exercise. Originally posted by mattson You broke down the difference to (mostly) upper body vs lower body exercise. But when I use an ergometer or a Nordictrack, machines that would involve the upper body as well as the lower, my "hunger response" is the same as running. Evolution has optimized the white muscle for anaerobic power. That doesn't mean that white muscle won't metabolize fat; it MUST be able to switch over from anaerobic power to aerobic power in order to sustain muscle activity. In fact, most physical activities present a combination of aerobic and anaerobic exercise. Running is more aerobic, but all you have to do is run up a hill to provide enough resistance to increase the anaerobic component. Weightlifting is mostly anaerobic, but while it would likely be dangerous to do so, you could increase the aerobic component by doing the reps as fast as possible. Swimming provides an almost perfect combination of aerobic and anaerobic activity: the sustained motion gives the aerobic component, while the resistance of the water provides the anaerobic component. Thus, your Nordictrack hunger response makes sense. It's a sustained activity with more of an aerobic component than anaerobic. Your body is powering itself off your fat reserves and suppresses the appetite because it doesn't think it needs immediate replacement of calories. If you think of it as a balance between the two types of exercise, the results of the aerobic activity are outweighing the results of the anaerobic component. Originally posted by mattson Would your argument change if you compared a sprinting running workout (muscle building) vs. a long distance moderate pace swim (aerobic)? I don't think so. While I can't personally attest to the effects of a sprinting running workout (since I'm not much of a runner), I do experience a difference in my hunger response between distance workouts and interval workouts in the pool. For example, I sometimes swim a 4000 to 5000m non-stop endurance workout, attempting to maintain a constant, reasonable pace throughout with my heart rate near its target level. When I get out of the pool, I generally have little desire to eat. When I have done this workout in the morning, on an empty stomach, I come out of the pool still hungry but unable to eat very much before feeling full. In contrast, when I swim intervals I am always hungry afterwards. The main set of my favorite workout is ten 100m IM on 2 minute intervals. My stomach usually starts growling soon after that set, and the rest of my workout has me thinking about what delicious things await me when I get out of the pool. (And yes, that response is the same when I've had a "full contact" workout with other swimmers kicking me in the sides. :D ) As you can see, I'm not saying that swimming doesn't burn fat or that running doesn't burn glycogen, nor am I saying that all swimming or running workouts affect the body the same way. What I'm saying is that, generally, our bodies have evolved to power the muscles in our upper and lower bodies differently to reflect the different kind of activities required of them, and that understanding this difference can help to understand why some types of exercise result in weight loss more quickly than others. Originally posted by mattson Similarly, the urge to "power nap" after a workout is independent of the type of exercise, what I've eaten, or whether or not I've eaten. I'm studying Japanese. Whenever I start a lesson, fifteen minutes into it I desperately want a power nap, but it has nothing to do with burning carbs either. I just mentioned wanting a nap after satisfying a carbohydrate craving as part of the explanation of what's happening in the body in that particular situation, not as an explanation of every narcoleptic fit. I just thought a lot of swimmers might be able to relate to that specific situation. Switching gears... Originally posted by exrunner The fundamental rule of weight loss is 3500 calorie deficit (surplus) = 1 pound weight loss (gain). This equation holds true whether your calorie expenditure is from swimming or running, and whether your calorie intake is in the form of pizza or alfalfa sprouts. The equation is also true whether your weight loss is from lean tissue or fat. While that may be a reasonable weight loss guideline at the basic level, it's really more complicated than that. The 3500 calorie number is the specific number of calories in a pound of fat. Muscle contains far fewer calories per pound, and muscle gain differs from muscle loss in the amount of calories absorbed or expended. For example, bodybuilders and weightlifters will tell you that you have to absorb an additional 2500 calories to gain a pound of muscle, but you only have to burn 500-600 calories to lose a pound of muscle if you get your diet screwed up. If your calorie deficit were to cause you to lose 3500 calories from muscle, your actual weight loss would be six to seven times greater than if you lost 3500 calories of fat. Therefore it is not true that your equation works whether your weight loss is from lean tissue or fat; it doesn't even out. The equation also doesn't hold true for different types or combinations of food, since it assumes that all calories consumed will be absorbed by the body. Whether fat is stored depends upon the body's insulin response. If there is more sugar in the bloodstream than the muscles can store, insulin is released, which then triggers storage of that excess sugar as fat. If it isn't stored in the muscles as glycogen or as fat from an insulin response, it's passed from the body. Some people are lucky enough to have an unusually low insulin response to everything they eat. You know them; they're the ones who seem to be able to eat anything and never gain a pound, even though they don't exercise that much. Don't you hate them? Whatever calories their bodies don't need are passed out of the body without being stored. These people specifically fly in the face of the that equation. Likewise, diabetics disprove the validity of that equation. One of the warning signs that diabetes has taken hold is weight gain. These weight changes can occur even when the diabetic has not changed his caloric intake or level of physical activity. What happens is that there's a change in insulin response in the body, and calories that before were passed out of the body as waste are being stored as fat in response to the higher insulin output. If 3500 calories really equalled a pound of fat in practice, a diabetic shouldn't gain weight at the onset of the disease unless he increased his caloric intake. Furthermore, the presence of protein in the diet affects the insulin response and drastically reduces the effectiveness of that formula. When the body attempts to digest protein and carbs at the same time, the protein slows the absorption of the carbohydrates and helps reduce the rate at which they hit the bloodstream as sugar. This in turn reduces the amount of insulin released, and the body stores less of the sugar as fat. Meanwhile, because the digestion of the carbs has been slowed, less of those calories are actually absorbed by the body before being passed on down the tube. Thus, 3500 calories consumed is not necessarily 3500 absorbed by the body, and 3500 calories lost doesn't necessarily equal a pound of weight. How much of it is absorbed or lost is dependent on what was eaten and what kind of tissue was involved. While it's attractive to try to simplify it down to a nice little formula that everyone can follow, the reality is that the human body is too complicated to be reduced to an equation.