Swim Slower and Burn More Calories

"4precious" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Companies seem to be forever marketing stuff with catchy slogans that can't possibly be true. Like
how you can get slim doing very modest exercise for a few minutes three times a week.

But the title of this post IS true!

This is all old ground for the user group, but I still found it interesting.

Given all the interest lately in kick times, swim ratios to kick ratios, etc. I resolved to start
using a 6-beat kick for all my swimming. It's not the first time I've made that vow. I figured I
would start by simply using 6 tiny kicks, and as I got better conditioned, I would start
emphasizing every third beat with a bigger downbeat where the power kicks are in a typical 2-beat
kick. (If you look at Donald Graft's video site you can see Diana Munz using that pattern.) And if
I ever got into really good shape, I would be nailing all 6.

So what happened. Well, I embarked on the latest kick adventure on the distance day. When you're
swimming 6 500's in a row, that's not an easy day to start kicking a lot more.

So of course I was probably 10-20% slower than usual. Maybe it's due to my lack of fitness
kicking, or not having the balance down. As Larry has pointed out, conventional swim doctrine
these days says that lactate produced by the arms can be burned by the legs. So I kept telling
myself to keep that "lactate burning factory" below the belt going even when my legs started
feeling like lead. So I started off leading a lane of 3 or 4 swimmers, the guy behind would
"tickle my toes" somewhere in the set, so I'd realize I was holding him up and let him through. Of
course by the end I was dead-last in the lane and suffering like a dog. I then looked over at lane
1, where there are men and women who swim on the University team going up and down the pool, and
none of them have a 6-beat.

I eat nearly the same thing everyday, but my stomach was growling like crazy after so much
kicking. Empirical proof to me that all the studies indicating that losing weight running is a
great idea, while trying to lose weight swimming can be a tough proposition.

So I figure the only way to start kicking is drop down one lane or two in speed in the pool, swim
for at least 6 weeks, and then see if it's worth continuing with that style. But would 6 weeks
even make much of a difference? Elite swimmers have literally a decade of kickboard history in
their legs.

But for now I think I'll back to swimming the way a lot of rec swimmers do - deep, straight armed
catch on both sides to maintain momentum, and very little kicking.

If anyone has success morphing into a kicker, I'd like to hear how they did it.

Eric

I kick a lot, those big muscles burn a LOT of calories. Especially with my zoomers on. Swimming is
not arms only kind of a sport.

My kick is not very propulsive yet, but I'm noticing that changing too. Right now, when I'm kicking,
even if it doesn't move me forward a whole lot, I'm thinking, "burn baby burn" (calories)... with
that "disco inferno" song in my head for pace.

I lost close to 15 pounds in 8 weeks of swimming. If you do it right, swimming burns about 30-40%
more calories than running. If you leave your legs out, you're probably cutting out good 60-70% of
the calories you could be burning during a swim. Just think, the bigger the muscle mass that you're
making move, the more calories get burned.

I hear that most runners have trouble adapting to swimming. At least that's what several of my
triathlete friends tell me.

I can swim a mile or two, quite easily, I cant run a mile. hell, I can't even run 1/4 of a mile
without my cardio seizing and my pulse going up over
200.My cardio has a long way to go. Fast kicking and swimming sprints exercises are working on
my cardio.

You might want to try biking. It will help you lose the weight you want and get your legs and butt
into the shape necessary to sustain kicking throughout your swim workouts.

Casey "4precious" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Companies seem to be forever marketing stuff with catchy slogans that can't possibly be true. Like
how you can get slim doing very modest exercise for a few minutes three times a week.

But the title of this post IS true!

This is all old ground for the user group, but I still found it interesting.

Given all the interest lately in kick times, swim ratios to kick ratios, etc. I resolved to start
using a 6-beat kick for all my swimming. It's not the first time I've made that vow. I figured I
would start by simply using 6 tiny kicks, and as I got better conditioned, I would start
emphasizing every third beat with a bigger downbeat where the power kicks are in a typical 2-beat
kick. (If you look at Donald Graft's video site you can see Diana Munz using that pattern.) And if
I ever got into really good shape, I would be nailing all 6.

So what happened. Well, I embarked on the latest kick adventure on the distance day. When you're
swimming 6 500's in a row, that's not an easy day to start kicking a lot more.

So of course I was probably 10-20% slower than usual. Maybe it's due to my lack of fitness
kicking, or not having the balance down. As Larry has pointed out, conventional swim doctrine
these days says that lactate produced by the arms can be burned by the legs. So I kept telling
myself to keep that "lactate burning factory" below the belt going even when my legs started
feeling like lead. So I started off leading a lane of 3 or 4 swimmers, the guy behind would
"tickle my toes" somewhere in the set, so I'd realize I was holding him up and let him through. Of
course by the end I was dead-last in the lane and suffering like a dog. I then looked over at lane
1, where there are men and women who swim on the University team going up and down the pool, and
none of them have a 6-beat.

I eat nearly the same thing everyday, but my stomach was growling like crazy after so much
kicking. Empirical proof to me that all the studies indicating that losing weight running is a
great idea, while trying to lose weight swimming can be a tough proposition.

So I figure the only way to start kicking is drop down one lane or two in speed in the pool, swim
for at least 6 weeks, and then see if it's worth continuing with that style. But would 6 weeks
even make much of a difference? Elite swimmers have literally a decade of kickboard history in
their legs.

But for now I think I'll back to swimming the way a lot of rec swimmers do - deep, straight armed
catch on both sides to maintain momentum, and very little kicking.

If anyone has success morphing into a kicker, I'd like to hear how they did it.

Eric

4precious wrote: SNIP

Quoted message said:

But for now I think I'll back to swimming the way a lot of rec swimmers do - deep, straight armed
catch on both sides to maintain momentum, and very little kicking.

If anyone has success morphing into a kicker, I'd like to hear how they did it.

Eric

While I wouldn't say I've morphed into a kicker, my kicking has improved a lot through practicing by
doing kicking-only drills on my back. According to the college swimmer who coaches/tutors me, most
people on their stomach only use half the kick, kicking on your back makes you kick up and down on
every kick.

I enjoy kicking-only drills a lot more than stroke-only drills.

My kicking drills make up 20% of my practice, but I'm not swimming long distances yet.

Since I have weird, short, curvy feet, if I can improve my kicking, anyone can. Madelaine

[email hidden] (4precious) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Companies seem to be forever marketing stuff with catchy slogans that can't possibly be true. Like
how you can get slim doing very modest exercise for a few minutes three times a week.

But the title of this post IS true!

I just read Gina Colata's (NYT health columnist)book Ultimate Fitness in which she shows much
accepted wisdom about exercise is false. For improving overall health, moderate exercise appears to
be sufficient. To improve physical appearance, intense effort is required. To reach a sense of
exhilaration and strength, however, one must actually love physical exertion for its own sake. The
"truth" about exercise, Kolata concludes, may lie in the view of psychopharmacologist Richard
Friedman, who suggests that "exercise is more often a marker of health than its cause. Well, when
you're swimming, you for sure aren't eating and so you are not gaining those calories at least. The
longer you stay in the water, kicking or not, the fewer calories you will consume.

"Madelaine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

4precious wrote: SNIP

Quoted message said:

But for now I think I'll back to swimming the way a lot of rec swimmers do - deep, straight
armed catch on both sides to maintain momentum, and very little kicking.

If anyone has success morphing into a kicker, I'd like to hear how they did it.

Eric

While I wouldn't say I've morphed into a kicker, my kicking has improved a lot through practicing
by doing kicking-only drills on my back.

I love those. At the moment, I feel a lot more balanced and coordinated doing the backstroke, rather
than freestyle. Maybe that will turn out to be my specialty.

Quoted message said:

According to the college swimmer who coaches/tutors me, most people on their stomach only use half
the kick, kicking on your back makes you kick up and down on every kick.

Thinking about how my kick works, I have to agree with that. I like verticals too. Sometimes in
betweeen sets I do a 10-15 second vertical kick, just to remind muself of the form. I tend to forget
I have abs.

Quoted message said:

I enjoy kicking-only drills a lot more than stroke-only drills.

Same here 🙂

Quoted message said:

My kicking drills make up 20% of my practice, but I'm not swimming long distances yet.

Since I have weird, short, curvy feet, if I can improve my kicking, anyone can. Madelaine

Glad to hear that! I'm 5' 9" tall and have only size 7 feet with not so flexible (yet) ankles. I'm
hoping there's hope!

Actually, I noticed my ankle flexibility improving in last 2-3 weeks.

Dory said:

Friedman, who suggests that "exercise is more often a marker of health than its cause. Well, when
you're swimming, you for sure aren't eating and so you are not gaining those calories at least. The
longer you stay in the water, kicking or not, the fewer calories you will consume.

Unless I really wear myself out, I'm eating a ton afterwards.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

In article <P%m8b.34604$S_.7383@fed1read01>,

DaKitty said:

I kick a lot, those big muscles burn a LOT of calories. Especially with my zoomers on. Swimming is
not arms only kind of a sport.

Usually I just do some freestyle, but my physio has told me to do some backstroke. I was totally
rubbish to start with, but I am starting to get better now. I find that I use my legs a lot more
in backstroke. It really takes it out of me. As a result, I find I use my legs a lot more in
freestyle now.

As for the title of this message thread, I was reading on a website the other day (I'll try to find
the link now) an article which stated the following (as best as can be remembered).

While it is true saying that exercising slower burns a higher percentage of fat, the total amount of
energy being used is lower as well. If you exercise as hard as you can, while the percentage of fat
being burned drops, you are using more energy overall. The net result is that you end up burning
more fat excercising harder.

Quoted message said:

pete

--
Please remove no_spam_ to respond directly by e-mail

"Peter Brown" <pbrown@no_spam_enterprise.net> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <P%m8b.34604$S_.7383@fed1read01>,

DaKitty said:

I kick a lot, those big muscles burn a LOT of calories. Especially with my zoomers on. Swimming
is not arms only kind of a sport.

Usually I just do some freestyle, but my physio has told me to do some backstroke. I was totally
rubbish to start with, but I am starting to get better now. I find that I use my legs a lot more
in backstroke. It really takes it out of me. As a result, I find I use my legs a lot more in
freestyle now.

You know, I overheard a coach say something to that effect just couple of days ago... Paraphrasing
'most people don't push their kick in both directions, up and doen, unless they're kicking on their
backs or vertically" That drew my attention to my own kick... and oh, my, was it true in my case!

Quoted message said:

As for the title of this message thread, I was reading on a website the other day (I'll try to
find the link now) an article which stated the following (as best as can be remembered).

While it is true saying that exercising slower burns a higher percentage of fat, the total amount
of energy being used is lower as well. If you exercise as hard as you can, while the percentage of
fat being burned drops, you are using more energy overall. The net result is that you end up
burning more fat excercising harder.

Yes, that is more or less correct. One has to be careful with "how hard"... because if you push way
too hard, you'll end up wearing yourself out and stopping long before you would if the intensity was
a little bit lower. And when I say "long before" I don't mean time wise, I mean by the total amount
of the energy expended"

For example, in my case, make me do 6x100m sprints (which in my case would result in a time of maybe
1:55), and I'll wiped out for the rest of the day. Or make me swim 3000 or 4000m at about 2:15 pace,
no problem. I'd still be worn out at the end, but I will have expended quite bit more total energy.

Or an example with Running vs. Fast Walking, running a mile may use up close to the same amount of
calories as fastwalking a mile. Running it just allows you to do it faster and more often. But, in
my case, I can walk 6 or 7 miles in 2-2.5 hours. I can't run a mile. Or if I tried to run too much,
during the 7 mile walk or run/walk, it would make it impossible to do the full 7 miles, and
therefore lower the total amount of energy burned.

But, if your exercise is limited by time... the higher intensity, the more calories burned. So if
you only have an hour, you'd want to go as hard as you can within that hour, pacing yourself so that
you don't wear yourself out before the hour is over. You want to be close to worn out at the end. If
you have too much energy at the end, you'd know to push little harder next time. So, running for an
hour WILL use up more energy than walking for an hour. (And running will cover a greater distance)

As for the fat burning, it usually doesn't kick in until after the other fuels in the body are used
up, and it usually happens about 10-20 minutes into a moderate exercise. So you want to be sure that
you pace yourself at the intensity that will allow you to exercise that long. Also, if the goal of
your exercise is to burn fat, then you're not going to want to sip on sports drinks during exercise,
because you're replenishing the glycogen, and as soon as it's there, your body will want to switch
to using it, instead of fat. This is good for competitions and sprints, because it gives you an
energy boos, but if you want to burn fat, then you have to let your body hit that performance wall,
when it gets a little bit harder, and keep going. Mentally and physically, that is more possible
when you lower the intensity just a tad.

There is some more finesse to it to gain few extra percentage points in maximizing your fat burning,
or maximizing your performance, but in general terms, the above will work quite well. In my case, If
I'm burning 90% of the 100% of the fat I could be burning, vs. burning 0%, I'm quite content with
90%. The other 10% is fine tuning the minutia. Probably something only the very top, elite athletes
need to worry about, you know, like body builders, to whom it's important to burn up the last 2 oz.
of fat. For a healthy lifestyle and competing for fun and personal interest (as opposed for
endorsements), the general guidelines work quite well.

It's always a balance between going too hard, and not hard enough.

Dory said:

[email hidden] (4precious) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Companies seem to be forever marketing stuff with catchy slogans that can't possibly be true. Like
how you can get slim doing very modest exercise for a few minutes three times a week.

But the title of this post IS true!

<snip>

Well, when you're swimming, you for sure aren't

Quoted message said:

eating and so you are not gaining those calories at least. The longer you stay in the water,
kicking or not, the fewer calories you will consume.

That is just stupid. I hate to be so harsh, but that it just about the single stupidest thing I have
ever heard. A person can eat a very large number of calories in a very short time--theoretically in
2-minute breaks between 1000 meter swims. Hardly anyone swims for 18 hours per day, and even if they
did, they could get a lot of calories packed into three half-hour breaks. How many bacon
cheeseburgers can a teenage boy eat in half an hour?

Eating is not about time-on-task. yeeesh, I hope that was a joke. Madelaine

About the kicking: in my internet travels I found very interesting advice about just that on the
zoomers.netzoomers.netOpen ↗ site.

Mark

"DaKitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SMK8b.36690$S_.24168@fed1read01...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Brown" <pbrown@no_spam_enterprise.net> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <P%m8b.34604$S_.7383@fed1read01>,

DaKitty said:

I kick a lot, those big muscles burn a LOT of calories. Especially with my zoomers on.
Swimming is not arms only kind of a sport.

Usually I just do some freestyle, but my physio has told me to do some backstroke. I was totally
rubbish to start with, but I am starting to get better now. I find that I use my legs a lot more
in backstroke. It really takes it out of me. As a result, I find I use my legs a lot more in
freestyle now.

You know, I overheard a coach say something to that effect just couple of days ago...
Paraphrasing 'most people don't push their kick in both directions, up and doen, unless they're
kicking on their backs or vertically" That drew my attention to my own kick... and oh, my, was it
true in my case!

Quoted message said:

As for the title of this message thread, I was reading on a website the other day (I'll try to
find the link now) an article which stated the following (as best as can be remembered).

While it is true saying that exercising slower burns a higher percentage of fat, the total
amount of energy being used is lower as well. If you exercise as hard as you can, while the
percentage of fat being burned drops, you are using more energy overall. The net result is that
you end up burning more fat excercising harder.

Yes, that is more or less correct. One has to be careful with "how hard"... because if you push
way too hard, you'll end up wearing yourself out and stopping long before you would if

the

Quoted message said:

intensity was a little bit lower. And when I say "long before" I don't

mean

Quoted message said:

time wise, I mean by the total amount of the energy expended"

For example, in my case, make me do 6x100m sprints (which in my case would result in a time of
maybe 1:55), and I'll wiped out for the rest of the

day.

Quoted message said:

Or make me swim 3000 or 4000m at about 2:15 pace, no problem. I'd still be worn out at the end,
but I will have expended quite bit more total energy.

Or an example with Running vs. Fast Walking, running a mile may use up

close

Quoted message said:

to the same amount of calories as fastwalking a mile. Running it just

allows

Quoted message said:

you to do it faster and more often. But, in my case, I can walk 6 or 7

miles

Quoted message said:

in 2-2.5 hours. I can't run a mile. Or if I tried to run too much, during the 7 mile walk or
run/walk, it would make it impossible to do the full 7 miles, and therefore lower the total amount
of energy burned.

But, if your exercise is limited by time... the higher intensity, the more calories burned. So
if you only have an hour, you'd want to go as hard as you can within that hour, pacing yourself
so that you don't wear yourself out before the hour is over. You want to be close to worn out at
the end.

If

Quoted message said:

you have too much energy at the end, you'd know to push little harder next time. So, running for
an hour WILL use up more energy than walking for an hour. (And running will cover a greater
distance)

As for the fat burning, it usually doesn't kick in until after the other fuels in the body are
used up, and it usually happens about 10-20 minutes into a moderate exercise. So you want to be
sure that you pace yourself at the intensity that will allow you to exercise that long. Also, if
the goal of your exercise is to burn fat, then you're not going

to

Quoted message said:

want to sip on sports drinks during exercise, because you're replenishing the glycogen, and as
soon as it's there, your body will want to switch to using it, instead of fat. This is good for
competitions and sprints,

because

Quoted message said:

it gives you an energy boos, but if you want to burn fat, then you have to let your body hit that
performance wall, when it gets a little bit harder, and keep going. Mentally and physically, that
is more possible when you lower the intensity just a tad.

There is some more finesse to it to gain few extra percentage points in maximizing your fat
burning, or maximizing your performance, but in

general

Quoted message said:

terms, the above will work quite well. In my case, If I'm burning 90% of

the

Quoted message said:

100% of the fat I could be burning, vs. burning 0%, I'm quite content with 90%. The other 10% is
fine tuning the minutia. Probably something only the very top, elite athletes need to worry about,
you know, like body

builders,

Quoted message said:

to whom it's important to burn up the last 2 oz. of fat. For a healthy lifestyle and competing for
fun and personal interest (as opposed for endorsements), the general guidelines work quite well.

It's always a balance between going too hard, and not hard enough.

Thanks for your posting. I have saved it off. There were a couple of pointers I had not realised,
like not using sports drinks and that you only start burning fat after 10-20 mins after the start
of exercise.

I'll check out the zoomers website also.

Quoted message said:

Pete

--
Please remove no_spam_ to respond directly by e-mail

Thanks for the reminder, I haven't been at their website for a very long time. Probably couple of
years, since I bough my zoomers. Looks like the bulk of what they are saying about weightloss is
about the same as what I was saying. Cool 🙂

Lot of other great info. I forgot it's there.

Looks like I'll have to get a new pair of zommers, with that softer rubber on toes... I have a
permanent blister on my left toe and a semi-permanent on my right. And the zommers have a permanent
layer of band-aid glue on them.

"Mark C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

About the kicking: in my internet travels I found very interesting advice about just that on the
zoomers.netzoomers.netOpen ↗ site.

Mark

"DaKitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SMK8b.36690$S_.24168@fed1read01...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Brown" <pbrown@no_spam_enterprise.net> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <P%m8b.34604$S_.7383@fed1read01>,
"DaKitty" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> I kick a lot, those big muscles burn a LOT of calories. Especially with my zoomers on.
> Swimming is not arms only kind of a sport.

Usually I just do some freestyle, but my physio has told me to do some backstroke. I was
totally rubbish to start with, but I am starting to get better now. I find that I use my
legs a lot more in backstroke. It really takes it out of me. As a result, I find I use my
legs a lot

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in freestyle now.

You know, I overheard a coach say something to that effect just couple

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

days ago... Paraphrasing 'most people don't push their kick in both directions, up and doen,
unless they're kicking on their backs or vertically" That drew my attention to my own kick...
and oh, my, was it true in my case!

Quoted message said:

As for the title of this message thread, I was reading on a website

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

other day (I'll try to find the link now) an article which stated the following (as best as
can be remembered).

While it is true saying that exercising slower burns a higher

percentage

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of fat, the total amount of energy being used is lower as well. If you exercise as hard as you
can, while the percentage of fat being burned drops, you are using more energy overall. The
net result is that you

end

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up burning more fat excercising harder.

Yes, that is more or less correct. One has to be careful with "how hard"... because if you push
way too

hard,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you'll end up wearing yourself out and stopping long before you would if

the

Quoted message said:

intensity was a little bit lower. And when I say "long before" I don't

mean

Quoted message said:

time wise, I mean by the total amount of the energy expended"

For example, in my case, make me do 6x100m sprints (which in my case

would

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

result in a time of maybe 1:55), and I'll wiped out for the rest of the

day.

Quoted message said:

Or make me swim 3000 or 4000m at about 2:15 pace, no problem. I'd still

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

worn out at the end, but I will have expended quite bit more total

energy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or an example with Running vs. Fast Walking, running a mile may use up

close

Quoted message said:

to the same amount of calories as fastwalking a mile. Running it just

allows

Quoted message said:

you to do it faster and more often. But, in my case, I can walk 6 or 7

miles

Quoted message said:

in 2-2.5 hours. I can't run a mile. Or if I tried to run too much,

during

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the 7 mile walk or run/walk, it would make it impossible to do the full

7

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

miles, and therefore lower the total amount of energy burned.

But, if your exercise is limited by time... the higher intensity, the

more

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

calories burned. So if you only have an hour, you'd want to go as hard

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you can within that hour, pacing yourself so that you don't wear

yourself

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

out before the hour is over. You want to be close to worn out at the

end.

Quoted message said:

If

Quoted message said:

you have too much energy at the end, you'd know to push little harder

next

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

time. So, running for an hour WILL use up more energy than walking for

an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hour. (And running will cover a greater distance)

As for the fat burning, it usually doesn't kick in until after the other fuels in the body are
used up, and it usually happens about 10-20

minutes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

into a moderate exercise. So you want to be sure that you pace yourself

at

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the intensity that will allow you to exercise that long. Also, if the goal of your exercise is
to burn fat, then you're not going

to

Quoted message said:

want to sip on sports drinks during exercise, because you're

replenishing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the glycogen, and as soon as it's there, your body will want to switch

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

using it, instead of fat. This is good for competitions and sprints,

because

Quoted message said:

it gives you an energy boos, but if you want to burn fat, then you have

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

let your body hit that performance wall, when it gets a little bit

harder,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and keep going. Mentally and physically, that is more possible when you lower the intensity just
a tad.

There is some more finesse to it to gain few extra percentage points in maximizing your fat
burning, or maximizing your performance, but in

general

Quoted message said:

terms, the above will work quite well. In my case, If I'm burning 90% of

the

Quoted message said:

100% of the fat I could be burning, vs. burning 0%, I'm quite content

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

90%. The other 10% is fine tuning the minutia. Probably something only

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

very top, elite athletes need to worry about, you know, like body

builders,

Quoted message said:

to whom it's important to burn up the last 2 oz. of fat. For a healthy lifestyle and
competing for fun and personal interest (as opposed for endorsements), the general guidelines
work quite well.

It's always a balance between going too hard, and not hard enough.

"Madelaine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dory said:

[email hidden] (4precious) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is just stupid. I hate to be so harsh, but that it just about the single stupidest thing I
have ever heard. A person can eat a very large number of calories in a very short
time--theoretically in 2-minute breaks between 1000 meter swims. Hardly anyone swims for 18 hours
per day, and even if they did, they could get a lot of calories packed into three half-hour
breaks. How many bacon cheeseburgers can a teenage boy eat in half an hour?

Eating is not about time-on-task. yeeesh, I hope that was a joke. Madelaine

IN reality the title is slightly wrong. It should read "Swim Slower and Burn More Fat".

The basis of all long distance base training is long slow efforts that teach your body to burn fat.
In terms of calories, if you swim a distance you will normally burn around the same calories if you
swim it fast or slow, you just finish quicker if you swim faster. So, if you swim 1 hour fast you
will use more calories than if you swim it slow, but if you swim it slow you may burn more fat as
opposed to carbs.

Confused? I hope not.
--
DrClean www.DrClean.co.uk The Best Fabric Cleaning Resource on the Web

DrClean said:

The basis of all long distance base training is long slow efforts that teach your body to burn fat.
In terms of calories, if you swim a distance you will normally burn around the same calories if you
swim it fast or slow, you just finish quicker if you swim faster. So, if you swim 1 hour fast you
will use more calories than if you swim it slow, but if you swim it slow you may burn more fat as
opposed to carbs.

But 1000cals burned at a fast pace so that only 20% was fat = 200fat cals. 500 cals burned at a slow
pace so it was 40% = 200fat cals, but 500 fewer carbs cals, which have to be made up for anyway.

Other than to ensure people go long enough, I don't see the gains in deliberately going slower than
necessary.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Madelaine <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Dory said:

[email hidden] (4precious) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Companies seem to be forever marketing stuff with catchy slogans that can't possibly be true.
Like how you can get slim doing very modest exercise for a few minutes three times a week.

But the title of this post IS true!

<snip>

Well, when you're swimming, you for sure aren't

Quoted message said:

eating and so you are not gaining those calories at least. The longer you stay in the water,
kicking or not, the fewer calories you will consume.

That is just stupid. I hate to be so harsh, but that it just about the single stupidest thing I
have ever heard. A person can eat a very large number of calories in a very short
time--theoretically in 2-minute breaks between 1000 meter swims. Hardly anyone swims for 18 hours
per day, and even if they did, they could get a lot of calories packed into three half-hour
breaks. How many bacon cheeseburgers can a teenage boy eat in half an hour?

Eating is not about time-on-task. yeeesh, I hope that was a joke. Madelaine

Tough crowd. I liked her post.

We all know that you can diet for 23 hours and 45 minutes, and then wreck that whole day by eating a
quart of ice cream just before midnight. The input side of things can always easily overwhelm the
output side.

Eric

"DrClean" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Madelaine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dory said:

[email hidden] (4precious) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is just stupid. I hate to be so harsh, but that it just about the single stupidest thing I
have ever heard. A person can eat a very large number of calories in a very short
time--theoretically in 2-minute breaks between 1000 meter swims. Hardly anyone swims for 18
hours per day, and even if they did, they could get a lot of calories packed into three
half-hour breaks. How many bacon cheeseburgers can a teenage boy eat in half an hour?

Eating is not about time-on-task. yeeesh, I hope that was a joke. Madelaine

IN reality the title is slightly wrong. It should read "Swim Slower and Burn More Fat".

The basis of all long distance base training is long slow efforts that teach your body to burn
fat. In terms of calories, if you swim a distance you will normally burn around the same calories
if you swim it fast or slow, you just finish quicker if you swim faster. So, if you swim 1 hour
fast you will use more calories than if you swim it slow, but if you swim it slow you may burn
more fat as opposed to carbs.

Confused? I hope not.

The jury is still out on what you are stating, Dr. Clean, and it wouldn't apply particuarly well to
swimming anyways.

Just to catch people up - at lower exertion rates, the body is better able to utilize fats. At
higher exertion rates, the body uses less fats and instead burns glycogen stores that are in the
muscles. So there is a school of thought that says working out at a moderate level is better if
your goal is to burn fat. However, studies haven't really backed this idea up. That's simply
because if you are working out harder, you are burning more calories in a given length of time. At
a higher level of exertion, the muscles may not be able to directly burn lipids in the blood
stream, but when the glycogen stores are replenished after the workout, guess what? The fat stores
are tapped at that point.

The other problem with your post relates to swimming as the activity. Arms are not well equipped to
burn fat at any levels of exertion. They are much different than the legs in that respect. So the
whole notion of swimming at a slow pace to better facilitate burning fat may not even exist, and
certainly not to the degree that lower body exercise makes that happen.

Eric

Actually the jury isn't out. The studies show that the harder you exercise, the more fat you burn.

"4precious" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"DrClean" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Madelaine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dory wrote:
> [email hidden] (4precious) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

>

That is just stupid. I hate to be so harsh, but that it just about

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

single stupidest thing I have ever heard. A person can eat a very

large

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

number of calories in a very short time--theoretically in 2-minute breaks between 1000 meter
swims. Hardly anyone swims for 18 hours per day, and even if they did, they could get a lot of
calories packed

into

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

three half-hour breaks. How many bacon cheeseburgers can a teenage

boy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

eat in half an hour?

Eating is not about time-on-task. yeeesh, I hope that was a joke. Madelaine

IN reality the title is slightly wrong. It should read "Swim Slower and

Burn

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

More Fat".

The basis of all long distance base training is long slow efforts that

teach

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your body to burn fat. In terms of calories, if you swim a distance you

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

normally burn around the same calories if you swim it fast or slow, you

just

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

finish quicker if you swim faster. So, if you swim 1 hour fast you will

use

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

more calories than if you swim it slow, but if you swim it slow you may

burn

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

more fat as opposed to carbs.

Confused? I hope not.

The jury is still out on what you are stating, Dr. Clean, and it wouldn't apply particuarly well
to swimming anyways.

Just to catch people up - at lower exertion rates, the body is better able to utilize fats. At
higher exertion rates, the body uses less fats and instead burns glycogen stores that are in the
muscles. So there is a school of thought that says working out at a moderate level is better if
your goal is to burn fat. However, studies haven't really backed this idea up. That's simply
because if you are working out harder, you are burning more calories in a given length of time. At
a higher level of exertion, the muscles may not be able to directly burn lipids in the blood
stream, but when the glycogen stores are replenished after the workout, guess what? The fat stores
are tapped at that point.

The other problem with your post relates to swimming as the activity. Arms are not well equipped
to burn fat at any levels of exertion. They are much different than the legs in that respect. So
the whole notion of swimming at a slow pace to better facilitate burning fat may not even exist,
and certainly not to the degree that lower body exercise makes that happen.

Eric

"4precious" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"DrClean" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Madelaine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dory wrote:
> [email hidden] (4precious) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

>

The jury is still out on what you are stating, Dr. Clean, and it wouldn't apply particuarly well
to swimming anyways.

Just to catch people up - at lower exertion rates, the body is better able to utilize fats. At
higher exertion rates, the body uses less fats and instead burns glycogen stores that are in the
muscles. So there is a school of thought that says working out at a moderate level is better if
your goal is to burn fat. However, studies haven't really backed this idea up. That's simply
because if you are working out harder, you are burning more calories in a given length of time. At
a higher level of exertion, the muscles may not be able to directly burn lipids in the blood
stream, but when the glycogen stores are replenished after the workout, guess what? The fat stores
are tapped at that point.

The other problem with your post relates to swimming as the activity. Arms are not well equipped
to burn fat at any levels of exertion. They are much different than the legs in that respect. So
the whole notion of swimming at a slow pace to better facilitate burning fat may not even exist,
and certainly not to the degree that lower body exercise makes that happen.

Eric

There's no question of doubt that if you work harder, for a given amount of time, you will burn more
calories than if you saunter along - hence lose more weight. However, the title to the post is what
I was commenting on - as it has to be wrong.

If you look at triathlon/cycling/running training the principle of early season base trainng is
linked with teaching your body to burn fat not glycogen. Lower exertion rates for a longer period of
time. I haven't seen any studies of long distance swimming and assume studies are harder, because
swimmers don't really consider themselves long distance athletes and it's hard to take measurements
in the water, but I would imagine the principle remains the same.

Racing swimmers however, probably don't need to invoke a fat burning energy system as their efforts
never deplete them of glycogen like in the three sports above.
--
DrClean www.DrClean.co.uk The Best Fabric Cleaning Resource on the Web

The title doesn't have to be wrong. If you swim slower because you change to a less efficient stroke
(in this case by kicking more when you have an inefficient kick), then you will burn more calories.

"DrClean" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"4precious" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"DrClean" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Madelaine" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
> Dory wrote:
> > [email hidden] (4precious) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> >

The jury is still out on what you are stating, Dr. Clean, and it wouldn't apply particuarly well
to swimming anyways.

Just to catch people up - at lower exertion rates, the body is better able to utilize fats. At
higher exertion rates, the body uses less fats and instead burns glycogen stores that are in the
muscles. So there is a school of thought that says working out at a moderate level is better if
your goal is to burn fat. However, studies haven't really backed this idea up. That's simply
because if you are working out harder, you are burning more calories in a given length of time.
At a higher level of exertion, the muscles may not be able to directly burn lipids in the blood
stream, but when the glycogen stores are replenished after the workout, guess what? The fat
stores are tapped at that point.

The other problem with your post relates to swimming as the activity. Arms are not well equipped
to burn fat at any levels of exertion. They are much different than the legs in that respect. So
the whole notion of swimming at a slow pace to better facilitate burning fat may not even exist,
and certainly not to the degree that lower body exercise makes that happen.

Eric

There's no question of doubt that if you work harder, for a given amount

of

Quoted message said:

time, you will burn more calories than if you saunter along - hence lose more weight. However, the
title to the post is what I was commenting on -

as

Quoted message said:

it has to be wrong.

If you look at triathlon/cycling/running training the principle of early season base trainng is
linked with teaching your body to burn fat not glycogen. Lower exertion rates for a longer period
of time. I haven't seen any studies of long distance swimming and assume studies are harder,

because

Quoted message said:

swimmers don't really consider themselves long distance athletes and it's hard to take
measurements in the water, but I would imagine the principle remains the same.

Racing swimmers however, probably don't need to invoke a fat burning

energy

Quoted message said:

system as their efforts never deplete them of glycogen like in the three sports above.
--
DrClean www.DrClean.co.uk The Best Fabric Cleaning Resource on the Web