I have determined that when I swim, based on my heart rate, I am burning an enormous amount of calories. The other day, I wore my HR monitor and based on my average HR, time spent swimming, and my weight, I burned 1053 calories. Now, the next day, I ran for 40 minutes and burned 453 calories.
I have noticed that when I just swim over a number of weeks, my LDL cholesterol readings go up and my body fat goes up as well. When I just run and don't burn as many calories (according to my HR monitor) my LDL drops, my HDLs go up, and my body fat decreases. I've noticed this now over the course of 13 years.
Anybody know of any studies out there that might explain this? Why would an activity such as swimming that obviously burns a bunch of calories cause an increase in body fat?
I agree with Elise. Running makes me skinny and swimming makes me fat. Don't think it can all be attributed to diet or age. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
+1
the good part of this fact is that fat makes us float more and swim faster. the bad part is that you have to run alot more to get rid of the fat.
Here is a great article that debunks the "research" that points toward swimming not being an effective weight loss exercise.
Mary -
Thanks for this article. It's nice to see someone take a critical review of previous research and find other elements of the experiment that impact results. All too often, the experiment is designed to find what the experimenter wants to find, rather than to simply understand the multiple interaction factors.
I have several heart-rate monitors, and I think they are great tools that really help with training. But I don't think anyone should take seriously the "calories burned" calculation. My opinion is that this calculation is based on a formula that's entirely arbitrary, that can't possibly be right from one individual to the next or from one exercise method to the next and, in any case, probably isn't meaningful.
I really think there is something to the swimming thing and lipid profile. My doc is a an athlete himself and is a big believer in preventative medicine. I have had physicals done by him for the last 13 years. Every time I have one done, my blood is taken first thing in the morning and I have fasted at least 10 hours beforehand. My diet when I was focused mainly on running was much worse than when I focused on swimming. My best readings came at a time when I would eat a chocolate chip muffin for breakfast and a candy bar every afternoon.
Here is what I discovered:
1995 to 1999: Swam an average of 14,000 yards a week. Little or no running. LDL average was 123 and HDLs were 50.
2000 to 2004 - Main emphasis was running and cycling. Averaged 20 miles a week running and averaged 4,000 yards a week with swimming. LDL average 101. HDL average was 70.
2004- June 2008 - Swam average of 12,000 yards a week. Little or no running. Some cycling. Average LDL was 135. HDL 57.
Trigylcerides are always very low - range from 33 to high of 70.
On the HR monitor, I don't take the calorie count as completely accurate, but I do put stock on my average HR. Average HR is often higher or same as a run. It is much easier to swim for 1.5 hours to 2 hours than run for the same amount of time. I think it is safe to assume that if I am swimming intensely, with a high HR, I'm going to burn plenty of calories over a 1.5 hour period, probably much more than a 45 minute run.
I may just have a real funky metabolism, but thought I would point it out so others might take note of their own cholesterol readings. I am just wondering it there if some kind of hormonal reaction the body has to water below body temp that causes it to produce more LDLs.
If somebody loses weight and some can lose weight by swimming, then their LDLs will drop simply because of the weight loss. Over the 13 years I have had physicals done, my weight has been pretty stable. I've never gone below or over 8 pounds from where it was in 1995.
So, for somebody who has kept a consistent diet (and I'll admit not always a perfect diet), who is kept their weight appropriate for their height (I'm 5'9.5 and have kept my weight between 138 and 146), why are my LDLs going up and my HDLs going down when I just swim?
I really hope there will be some kind of study done on this at least as to females because I think there is something going on that has yet to be explained.
Mary - Thanks for the article. What was interesting to me is that in the studies using women, the subjects gained weight swimming while in the studies using men, the subjects lost weight. I've noticed that the best way for my husband to lose weight is to swim intensely. I've found, however, that it does not work well for weight control in many women, including myself.
Same for me. Swimming=Big Tank or Running=Thin :doh: Looking forward to moving to NZ and switching from swimming to running.
Kristina - I've never seen you look like a big tank! One of the girls on my team said you were real sweet and encouraging to her at the Athens meet this past June. She couldn't remember your name but referred to you as "that real fit girl with the great figure - the one who is so fast."
Same for me. Swimming=Big Tank.
Oh lord not ANOTHER one :doh:
I have yet to see ANY high level female swimmer who looks like a 'tank'
. Geez, get out of your heads ladies. You look MAH-velous. :groovy:
When most of us "run," we tend to go longer distances in the aerobic zone, at or just below our lactate thresholds - and, at this rate and over extended periods, the male or female body generates the necessary energy primarily by burning fat. Some swimmers, in contrast, prefer to blast down the pool at top speeds - their heart rate might not race as high, perhaps, as when they run (in part because they are horizontal and cool, among other factors, and in part also because their sprint workouts include recovery time). In the sprint-paced swims, the body is more likely to draw energy from muscle glycogen rather than fat.
If one were to train on the track only for the 100-meter dash, and if one were to build their aerobic base in the pool - in other words, if one were to reverse their training practices - isn't it likely that the effects would be reversed?
This seems like a valid point. However, I've been doing more aerobic work in the pool lately. No difference. I was talking to a triathlete friend about this issue the other day. She said the same thing. Triathlon = skinny; swimming = fat. She said the only time she was thin swimming was when she was doing 10,000+ yards a day. Not happening! It would be theoretically interesting to maintain my same swim schedule and run 5x a week and see if that made a difference. I think it would, but that's really not possible either.
Michael, your studies compare swimmers to the average American for the most part. Not a valid comparison as the average American is overweight. Plus, it's not that the fat has "moved around." I didn't have much before, even after 3 kids. I have more now. Plus, there's the really awful mega shoulder tank effect. Hulk -- you're a body building guy. You look at things differently. It's just damn hard to convince fegirls that bigger is better.
Kristina Cream Puff is a size 2. No fat complaints allowed. Or we will have to post pics of the tight black nike tights!
I have to agree with the original post and a number of the other posts here. All throughout my swimming career, if I needed to lose some pounds, I found I needed to either run or ramp up the weight lifting.
I have a hypothesis that is based on complete conjecture and absolute no reading of scientific articles: Running and lifting weights are HARD whereas swimming is easy. Granted, fast swimming is not easy, but I feel far more fatigued after trying to run a mile than after trying to swim a mile ... even if I ramp the intensity to high on both. My belief is that, since I'm a pretty efficient swimmer, switching to a different activity like running engages very different muscle systems that are inefficient and burn more fat.
I've recently knocked off about 10 pounds (low 200s to low 190s) by mainly adding running back into my training routine ... of course, this week, my knees hurt so much that I couldn't kick breaststroke, so I guess I'll just gain the weight back again:sad:
When it comes to exercise (any kind), I know that your body and muscle systems seem to plateau, if you do only the same thing everyday. I keep reading that it's best if you sort of "shock" your body by doing different exercise routines every week or cross training. The results are calories and fat are burned more effeciently making for a higher metabolism.
Sorry, the only thing that will increase the levels of fat in your body is if you consume (eat and/or drink) more calories per day than your body burns. Other than that, your options are having fat cells injected into your body but that seems kinda pointless.
Paul