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?
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.
I am no runner, but...comparing the 00-04 years to the others, it appears that you are basically replacing 8,000-10,000 yards of swimming with 20 miles of running.
Forget all this "fat burning HR" nonsense, I believe you were simply burning significantly more calories running than swimming, particularly when you factor in hills and the pounding that running produces.
For me the comparison would be cycling: one hour of cycling will generally consumer more calories than one hour of swimming because, in cycling, I am exercising continuously (even recovering from hard efforts is "active recovery") while that is not true in swimming. In swim practice, including time between sets, you might spend as much as 10-50% of the time on the wall (although, for me, the level of intensity tends to be somewhat higher in swimming).
Using Elise's numbers as an example: at a pace of 8-minute miles, 20 miles is 160 minutes. At a 1:15/hundred pace, 10,000 yards would take 125 minutes if swum continuously. Substitute the rates of your choice, but generally running & swimming at a comparable level of ability will have the result that running 20 miles takes longer to do than swimming 8000-10000 yards.
(And it seems to me that I have read from a number of sources -- which doesn't necessarily make it true -- that the same perceived effort for running will burn calories at a slightly higher rate than for swimming. This might possibly have to do with cooling.)
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.
I am no runner, but...comparing the 00-04 years to the others, it appears that you are basically replacing 8,000-10,000 yards of swimming with 20 miles of running.
Forget all this "fat burning HR" nonsense, I believe you were simply burning significantly more calories running than swimming, particularly when you factor in hills and the pounding that running produces.
For me the comparison would be cycling: one hour of cycling will generally consumer more calories than one hour of swimming because, in cycling, I am exercising continuously (even recovering from hard efforts is "active recovery") while that is not true in swimming. In swim practice, including time between sets, you might spend as much as 10-50% of the time on the wall (although, for me, the level of intensity tends to be somewhat higher in swimming).
Using Elise's numbers as an example: at a pace of 8-minute miles, 20 miles is 160 minutes. At a 1:15/hundred pace, 10,000 yards would take 125 minutes if swum continuously. Substitute the rates of your choice, but generally running & swimming at a comparable level of ability will have the result that running 20 miles takes longer to do than swimming 8000-10000 yards.
(And it seems to me that I have read from a number of sources -- which doesn't necessarily make it true -- that the same perceived effort for running will burn calories at a slightly higher rate than for swimming. This might possibly have to do with cooling.)
