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?
Parents
Former Member
That's right, written like a true professor!
Now, I'm not sure how many of you are aware of this, but there is a time-based relationship between running and swimming, on a scale of about 4-to-1.
What that means is, 100 meters of swimming equals a 400 meter run in terms of time spent exercising, approximately. The world's best 100m run is 9.69, which is about what a top swimmer will do from the blocks for a 25.
The point is simple, if you really want to compare a 4 mile run, in terms of physiological impact, you should swim continuously for 1 mile, or an equivalent time.
Conversely, if you wanted to know how best to train for the 100 meter swim you should compare to the world's best 400 runners. Amazing how they focus on extending 100 meter bursts (400/100,100/25,4-1), maximizing top speed output over the 400 using sprint endurance.
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.)
That's right, written like a true professor!
Now, I'm not sure how many of you are aware of this, but there is a time-based relationship between running and swimming, on a scale of about 4-to-1.
What that means is, 100 meters of swimming equals a 400 meter run in terms of time spent exercising, approximately. The world's best 100m run is 9.69, which is about what a top swimmer will do from the blocks for a 25.
The point is simple, if you really want to compare a 4 mile run, in terms of physiological impact, you should swim continuously for 1 mile, or an equivalent time.
Conversely, if you wanted to know how best to train for the 100 meter swim you should compare to the world's best 400 runners. Amazing how they focus on extending 100 meter bursts (400/100,100/25,4-1), maximizing top speed output over the 400 using sprint endurance.
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.)
