At my yearly physical last week a funny thing happened. The doctors staff informed me that swimming is not an aerobic exercise and that I would be better off walking briskly for 20 to 30 minutes a couple days each week.
I explained I try to swim 2 to 3 times each week for 60 to 90 minutes,and my workout is prepared by MO, ya'll might recognise that name. They asked me the distance I cover in that time and I responded with 2800 to 3500 yards or 1.5 to 2 miles depending on time.
Not good enough according to the staff. I should be walking. I will let the facts stand for themselves.
Age 48
Wt 149
BP 120/80
Pulse 60
Body Fat 18%
Total Cholesterol 194 (need to eat better)
Well it is off to the pool for another MO workout. Maybe I will walk briskly from my car to the pool and see if that counts. Thanks for those workouts MO I enjoy them.
Have a great day
Paul
Originally posted by aquageek
You'd have to give me some credit as it would be a clever disguise. That's now three times in the past month I've been accused of Ion-like behavior. If only I swam slower to enhance the ruse.
It's not your motives that are suspect, just the way you are expressing your argument. When Ion says "Europeans hold Americans in contempt", and what he really meant was a few Frenchmen he had lunch with, you were right to call him on that. When you call walkers fat, lazy slobs, and what you really mean is a subclass of walkers (the "lolly-gaggers"), then we are right to call you on that. (There was nothing in your earlier posts to indicate that you made a distinction between vigorous walkers, like your wife, and other walkers.)
If walking is exercise, why stop there, maybe vigorous sleeping is exercise also. I think I'll go take a power nap because as Americans get plumper and plumper the definition of exercise is certain to approach a catatonic state.
But you already stated that walking, done the right way, is exercise. (You gave your wife as an example.) Just like others have agreed with you that walking, done lazily, is hardly exercise. You shouldn't be arguing that walking isn't exercise. You should be arguing, like Emmett did, that any exercise (including swimming) needs to have some intensity.
As for that last point, maybe you are on to something. There should be a study, to see if sleepwalkers (who don't otherwise exercise) are more fit than more sedentary sleepers. ;)
Originally posted by aquageek
You'd have to give me some credit as it would be a clever disguise. That's now three times in the past month I've been accused of Ion-like behavior. If only I swam slower to enhance the ruse.
It's not your motives that are suspect, just the way you are expressing your argument. When Ion says "Europeans hold Americans in contempt", and what he really meant was a few Frenchmen he had lunch with, you were right to call him on that. When you call walkers fat, lazy slobs, and what you really mean is a subclass of walkers (the "lolly-gaggers"), then we are right to call you on that. (There was nothing in your earlier posts to indicate that you made a distinction between vigorous walkers, like your wife, and other walkers.)
If walking is exercise, why stop there, maybe vigorous sleeping is exercise also. I think I'll go take a power nap because as Americans get plumper and plumper the definition of exercise is certain to approach a catatonic state.
But you already stated that walking, done the right way, is exercise. (You gave your wife as an example.) Just like others have agreed with you that walking, done lazily, is hardly exercise. You shouldn't be arguing that walking isn't exercise. You should be arguing, like Emmett did, that any exercise (including swimming) needs to have some intensity.
As for that last point, maybe you are on to something. There should be a study, to see if sleepwalkers (who don't otherwise exercise) are more fit than more sedentary sleepers. ;)
