Actually he's 100% correct...every single study I have seen says the same thing.
Here's just one:
www.womenshealthmag.com/.../cardio-vs-strength-training-workouts
Are you citing random articles? That article has nothing about swimmers being cooled off which prevents hunger suppression.
I do believe that every single study you have seen says the same thing, because you have not actually read any.
Lucky masters! Personally, I'd really like this kind of workout, but it suits a sprinter's ADD mentality. And there's nothing wrong with minimizing swimming monotony with a little action!
How long until mixing it up becomes monotonous? Most coaches aren't that creative to begin with. Hopping out of the pool and doing dry lands mid workout sounds fun if I am 16yo and it is a peak yardage time for an afternoon workout. But when I have 3 coached workouts available a week, and each workout is no more than 75 minutes, why would I want to give up water time?
I am not against the idea, but I don't think it will work for most masters teams.
It appears that there is just a dispute on the forum and elsewhere as to how much pure athleticism (Cross Fit, P90X, certain dryland or cross training) translates to fast(er) swimming.
Yep, now that we have resolved the essential beer gut fat issue, only the pure athleticism dispute remains... and suits. :)
I see that some of us are interested or curious about P90X as a way to directly improve performance, but at least as many seem more interested in it as a weight loss method. I guess I'm kind of surprised. Swimming is such a great way to stay slim and well-toned. It does great things for the body! Are that many swimmers truly in need of another way to take off weight?
Are you citing random articles? That article has nothing about swimmers being cooled off which prevents hunger suppression.
I do believe that every single study you have seen says the same thing, because you have not actually read any.
Yes I am...to show how easilly anyone who cares to look can find articles and/or research that shows strength training is more effective at weight loss than just cardio...and that combination of both is optimum (along with reduction of calories).
Feel free to share more of your wonderful insights and any studies/articles you can dig up that disputes this....
Another viewpoint on swimming as a means of losing weight:
www.healthguidance.org/.../Is-Swimming-Effective-For-Weight-Loss-And-Tone-Muscles.html
Yes I am...to show how easilly anyone who cares to look can find articles and/or research that shows strength training is more effective at weight loss than just cardio...and that combination of both is optimum (along with reduction of calories).
Feel free to share more of your wonderful insights and any studies/articles you can dig up that disputes this....
Another viewpoint on swimming as a means of losing weight:
www.healthguidance.org/.../Is-Swimming-Effective-For-Weight-Loss-And-Tone-Muscles.html
Mr. Smith, it really was my fault that you quoted the wrong comment and defended the wrong guy, rendering your argument completely unintelligible. I will do my best to read your comments, figure out what you actually meant to say.
I agree that strength training aides weight loss.
If you can swim for an hour daily with roughly half of that in the En2 training zone, I believe that you will lose weight. The problem is that this requires both technique and endurance that the typical fitness swimmer lacks. After joining USMS in 2003 I lost 20 pounds with no cross training other than 20 minutes of weight lifting 2 or 3 days weekly.
If you can swim for an hour daily with roughly half of that in the En2 training zone, I believe that you will lose weight. The problem is that this requires both technique and endurance that the typical fitness swimmer lacks. After joining USMS in 2003 I lost 20 pounds with no cross training other than 20 minutes of weight lifting 2 or 3 days weekly.
Of course. I think the issue is twofold really. Firstly, I think some people just don't put the effort that they think they are putting into their swimming. This happens alot with beginners, who assume they are burning way more calories than they really are. Secondly, exercise works up an appetite. I know I am really hungry after I leave the pool. Some folks just don't adjust their calorie intake and end up overeating. Other than that, swimming is a great way to lose weight if you mind your food intake.
I specifically wanted to know if it was technically possible to inflate muscle mass enough to achieve 2% body fat without death. I read the articles you posted, and I did not find anything to lead me to believe that essential fat, in lbs, increases with body weight.
An anorexic guy (A) at 120 lbs who has an obese identical twin (B) at 300lbs. A has an essential body fat percentage of 5% and B has an essential body fat percentage of 2%. They both have essential body fat of 6 lbs, because they have identical insides. Makes sense to me.
I didn't ask if you thought it was easy.
I was just reading through the thread and this caught my attention. Could you please explain to me how you figure a 300 lb man with only 2% bodyfat would be considered obese?
Chlorine was correct in stating that essential body fat is not a fixed weight. It is a percentage of bodyfat that a human being requires to stay alive. This is commonly acknowledged as a minimum of 2% of your total bodyweight, whatever it may be.
Is this what you are claiming:
- person has an essential body fat X (in lbs, not %)
- person gains weight
- person's essential body fat increases from X to X + Y
- person looses weight
- person's essential body fat stays X + Y
The McArdle quote is a pretty common one that you see debated on forums everywhere, as it is widely available on google books preview and is from an old physiology text. Unfortunately, it gets taken out of context as a result. What one would need to look at is the full study in order to see the conditions and methods used to determine bodyfat levels. Currently, there are no methods of measuring body fat in humans that is 100% accurate, short of dissection. For example, the following studies:
Costill, Bowers, et al (1970)
coetzer et al (1993)
Pollock, Gettman, et al Body composition of elite class distance runners (1977)
All measured marathon runners at between 3.5%-7%. A far cry from McArdles findings. Furthermore, I highly recommend any study by Ancel Keys, et al as well as the "Minnesota Starvation Experiment", also run by Ancel Keys as they give brilliant insight into what happens to the body as it starves. People tend to forget, that what we see as dieting, the body still sees as starvation and will react accordingly, based on the severity. So the last study was a real opener to the scientific community over 60 years ago.
This statement really irks me: "The McArdle quote is a pretty common one that you see debated on forums everywhere, as it is widely available on google books preview and is from an old physiology text."
I quoted a source that is easily accessible and published 2 years ago, then you criticize it for being easily accessible, claim it is old, and then cite articles that are no newer than 15 yeas old to refute it. The most recent citation was "Superior fatigue resistance of elite black South African distance runners" wasn't a study about body fat.
I think the important thing that all of these studies prove in the end, is that when someone comes to a forum and claims they have hit 2% body fat, the chances are great that they really didn't. If not for the fact that it can cause serious health issues, then at the very least because it is really damn hard and has not been recorded with any certainty even by an elite athlete.
I am not trying to prove or disprove funkyfish's statement. I just asked if it was mathematically have a 2% body fat, with the assumption that the person is still alive.
