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?
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?
This must be the link. I think I go hard in the pool and have my HR over the AT level quite a bit. For example, one time when I got really carried away, I did 12 x 150 free on 2:00 and tried to hold 1:45 on each one. When I finished, I took my HR with my finger at the neck and I was at 220. No joke!
In running or biking, except when I am doing speed work, and that only used to happen once a week, I would keep my HR fixed in the aerobic zone for periods of between 30 minutes to 120 minutes.
So, what I am wondering is if constantly training in an anaerobic state results in more fat storage while training in the aerobic state results in fat-burning.
For health reasons, I really am thinking about going back to triathlon training. I could eat horribly - baked goods a couple times a day and still have LDLs just around 101 and HDLs up around 70. It's much easier for me to add exercise than cut out the sweets. This will be a problem as I get older as I won't always be able to do tris. I've decided that if I can't run or bike, I'll just walk 2 hours a day and of course, still swim.
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?
This must be the link. I think I go hard in the pool and have my HR over the AT level quite a bit. For example, one time when I got really carried away, I did 12 x 150 free on 2:00 and tried to hold 1:45 on each one. When I finished, I took my HR with my finger at the neck and I was at 220. No joke!
In running or biking, except when I am doing speed work, and that only used to happen once a week, I would keep my HR fixed in the aerobic zone for periods of between 30 minutes to 120 minutes.
So, what I am wondering is if constantly training in an anaerobic state results in more fat storage while training in the aerobic state results in fat-burning.
For health reasons, I really am thinking about going back to triathlon training. I could eat horribly - baked goods a couple times a day and still have LDLs just around 101 and HDLs up around 70. It's much easier for me to add exercise than cut out the sweets. This will be a problem as I get older as I won't always be able to do tris. I've decided that if I can't run or bike, I'll just walk 2 hours a day and of course, still swim.
