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've been doing more aerobic work in the pool lately.
... swimming operates at a much better aerobic/anaerobic balance than running …
Maybe someone can help me better understand the definitions of "aerobic" and "anaerobic."
In my mind, I go back to the beginning of this thread – the heart rate monitors. The most effective range for burning fat is what I would call an "aerobic" range; in this range, the heart rate is below the lactate or anaerobic threshold – by this definition, "aerobic" work does not mean the swimmer is achieving the highest heart rate possible. In contrast, as I understand it, the most effective range for building fast-twitch muscles (that is, the training range that is most effective for building speed and other things that it takes to win a short race – but also for creating an appetite for food rather than for burning fat) is above the "anaerobic" threshold (and you’ll know you’re in that range by checking your heart rate and comparing it to, say, a T-30 swim). Right?
This all seems more complicated by the fact that an identical level of "aerobic" or "anaerobic" work will produce different heart rates when you are running versus when you are swimming. The heart rate for a comparable amount of work in the water will be lower than when you are running around a track. Again, right?
I've been doing more aerobic work in the pool lately.
... swimming operates at a much better aerobic/anaerobic balance than running …
Maybe someone can help me better understand the definitions of "aerobic" and "anaerobic."
In my mind, I go back to the beginning of this thread – the heart rate monitors. The most effective range for burning fat is what I would call an "aerobic" range; in this range, the heart rate is below the lactate or anaerobic threshold – by this definition, "aerobic" work does not mean the swimmer is achieving the highest heart rate possible. In contrast, as I understand it, the most effective range for building fast-twitch muscles (that is, the training range that is most effective for building speed and other things that it takes to win a short race – but also for creating an appetite for food rather than for burning fat) is above the "anaerobic" threshold (and you’ll know you’re in that range by checking your heart rate and comparing it to, say, a T-30 swim). Right?
This all seems more complicated by the fact that an identical level of "aerobic" or "anaerobic" work will produce different heart rates when you are running versus when you are swimming. The heart rate for a comparable amount of work in the water will be lower than when you are running around a track. Again, right?
