Fins and weight belt -- good cardiovascular exercise?

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by [email protected], Feb 13, 2006.

  1. I go to a local pool regularly; I am not concerned with speed, just
    with endurance and cardiovascular fitness. Few weeks ago I was testing
    my new fins (I am a scuba diver) and to get some decent exercise out of
    the visit decided to make it a little more challenging. I put on my
    weight belt with 9 lb of lead and started swimming on my back with
    scissor leg motion scuba divers normally use. That proved surprisingly
    difficult -- I was completely winded after barely half the distance I
    normally swim, even as I covered that distance much faster than usual.
    After a few visits to the pool I figured out a workable stroke -- arms
    straight along the body with hands rigid, and move arms up and down in
    synch with legs, as if I were marching on my back. That way my hands
    add to the thrust of the fins. Still, it is HARD. Definitely more
    intensive exercise than just swiming, or swimming with fins only. Now,
    the time I can devote to the pool is somewhat limited -- if I am
    getting better heart workout from 30 minutes with fins and weight belt
    than from 45 minutes of breast stroke, I am all for it. But is that
    really the case?

    Also, I wonder a little about the physics of fins. Everyone knows that
    with fins you swim faster, but I do not think they convert leg motion
    into forward momentum more efficiently -- rather, fins allow you to to
    apply more force with your legs. A fin pushes against more water than a
    bare foot does, so it propels more water backward, and in accordance
    with Newton's Third Law propels you forward faster. But exactly because
    you are pushing against more water, you must (given same up-down leg
    pace) apply more force. So the difference between swimming with fins
    and without is the same as the difference between pedaling a bike in
    10th gear and in 1st gear -- given the SAME LEG PACE, you move much
    faster AND apply a lot more force. Which of course implies burning more
    calories and better heart workout.

    Does that make sense, or am I missing something?
     
    Tags:


  2. rookie

    rookie Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > I go to a local pool regularly; I am not concerned with speed, just
    > with endurance and cardiovascular fitness. Few weeks ago I was testing
    > my new fins (I am a scuba diver) and to get some decent exercise out of
    > the visit decided to make it a little more challenging. I put on my
    > weight belt with 9 lb of lead and started swimming on my back with
    > scissor leg motion scuba divers normally use. That proved surprisingly
    > difficult -- I was completely winded after barely half the distance I
    > normally swim, even as I covered that distance much faster than usual.
    > After a few visits to the pool I figured out a workable stroke -- arms
    > straight along the body with hands rigid, and move arms up and down in
    > synch with legs, as if I were marching on my back. That way my hands
    > add to the thrust of the fins. Still, it is HARD. Definitely more
    > intensive exercise than just swiming, or swimming with fins only. Now,
    > the time I can devote to the pool is somewhat limited -- if I am
    > getting better heart workout from 30 minutes with fins and weight belt
    > than from 45 minutes of breast stroke, I am all for it. But is that
    > really the case?
    >
    > Also, I wonder a little about the physics of fins. Everyone knows that
    > with fins you swim faster, but I do not think they convert leg motion
    > into forward momentum more efficiently -- rather, fins allow you to to
    > apply more force with your legs. A fin pushes against more water than a
    > bare foot does, so it propels more water backward, and in accordance
    > with Newton's Third Law propels you forward faster. But exactly because
    > you are pushing against more water, you must (given same up-down leg
    > pace) apply more force. So the difference between swimming with fins
    > and without is the same as the difference between pedaling a bike in
    > 10th gear and in 1st gear -- given the SAME LEG PACE, you move much
    > faster AND apply a lot more force. Which of course implies burning more
    > calories and better heart workout.
    >
    > Does that make sense, or am I missing something?


    Makes sense if you want to work out harder and learn to go faster with
    fins and a weight belt on. Doesn't make sense if you want to go faster
    when not wearing a weights belt and fins - would be a useful drill to
    improve your leg kick only. Might even make your regular stroke worse
    as wearing a weights belt for long periods could mess up your body
    position in the water when you take it off.
     
  3. Martin Smith

    Martin Smith Guest

    [email protected] wrote:

    >I go to a local pool regularly; I am not concerned with speed, just
    >with endurance and cardiovascular fitness. Few weeks ago I was testing
    >my new fins (I am a scuba diver) and to get some decent exercise out of
    >the visit decided to make it a little more challenging. I put on my
    >weight belt with 9 lb of lead and started swimming on my back with
    >scissor leg motion scuba divers normally use. That proved surprisingly
    >difficult -- I was completely winded after barely half the distance I
    >normally swim, even as I covered that distance much faster than usual.
    >After a few visits to the pool I figured out a workable stroke -- arms
    >straight along the body with hands rigid, and move arms up and down in
    >synch with legs, as if I were marching on my back. That way my hands
    >add to the thrust of the fins. Still, it is HARD. Definitely more
    >intensive exercise than just swiming, or swimming with fins only. Now,
    >the time I can devote to the pool is somewhat limited -- if I am
    >getting better heart workout from 30 minutes with fins and weight belt
    >than from 45 minutes of breast stroke, I am all for it. But is that
    >really the case?
    >
    >Also, I wonder a little about the physics of fins. Everyone knows that
    >with fins you swim faster, but I do not think they convert leg motion
    >into forward momentum more efficiently -- rather, fins allow you to to
    >apply more force with your legs. A fin pushes against more water than a
    >bare foot does, so it propels more water backward, and in accordance
    >with Newton's Third Law propels you forward faster. But exactly because
    >you are pushing against more water, you must (given same up-down leg
    >pace) apply more force. So the difference between swimming with fins
    >and without is the same as the difference between pedaling a bike in
    >10th gear and in 1st gear -- given the SAME LEG PACE, you move much
    >faster AND apply a lot more force. Which of course implies burning more
    >calories and better heart workout.
    >
    >Does that make sense, or am I missing something?


    I think you are basically correct, but I would recommend swimming fins
    for this. Diving fins are two big and two stiff.
     
  4. Martin Smith

    Martin Smith Guest

    Martin Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >
    >>I go to a local pool regularly; I am not concerned with speed, just
    >>with endurance and cardiovascular fitness. Few weeks ago I was testing
    >>my new fins (I am a scuba diver) and to get some decent exercise out of
    >>the visit decided to make it a little more challenging. I put on my
    >>weight belt with 9 lb of lead and started swimming on my back with
    >>scissor leg motion scuba divers normally use. That proved surprisingly
    >>difficult -- I was completely winded after barely half the distance I
    >>normally swim, even as I covered that distance much faster than usual.
    >>After a few visits to the pool I figured out a workable stroke -- arms
    >>straight along the body with hands rigid, and move arms up and down in
    >>synch with legs, as if I were marching on my back. That way my hands
    >>add to the thrust of the fins. Still, it is HARD. Definitely more
    >>intensive exercise than just swiming, or swimming with fins only. Now,
    >>the time I can devote to the pool is somewhat limited -- if I am
    >>getting better heart workout from 30 minutes with fins and weight belt
    >>than from 45 minutes of breast stroke, I am all for it. But is that
    >>really the case?
    >>
    >>Also, I wonder a little about the physics of fins. Everyone knows that
    >>with fins you swim faster, but I do not think they convert leg motion
    >>into forward momentum more efficiently -- rather, fins allow you to to
    >>apply more force with your legs. A fin pushes against more water than a
    >>bare foot does, so it propels more water backward, and in accordance
    >>with Newton's Third Law propels you forward faster. But exactly because
    >>you are pushing against more water, you must (given same up-down leg
    >>pace) apply more force. So the difference between swimming with fins
    >>and without is the same as the difference between pedaling a bike in
    >>10th gear and in 1st gear -- given the SAME LEG PACE, you move much
    >>faster AND apply a lot more force. Which of course implies burning more
    >>calories and better heart workout.
    >>
    >>Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

    >
    >I think you are basically correct, but I would recommend swimming fins
    >for this. Diving fins are two big and two stiff.


    Wow, that was stoopid. Maybe I have ADD, or dyslexia.

    Diving fins are too big and too stiff.
     
  5. jtaylor

    jtaylor Guest

    "Martin Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > [email protected] wrote:
    >
    >
    > >Also, I wonder a little about the physics of fins. Everyone knows that
    > >with fins you swim faster, but I do not think they convert leg motion
    > >into forward momentum more efficiently -- rather, fins allow you to to
    > >apply more force with your legs. A fin pushes against more water than a
    > >bare foot does, so it propels more water backward, and in accordance
    > >with Newton's Third Law propels you forward faster. But exactly because
    > >you are pushing against more water, you must (given same up-down leg
    > >pace) apply more force. So the difference between swimming with fins
    > >and without is the same as the difference between pedaling a bike in
    > >10th gear and in 1st gear -- given the SAME LEG PACE, you move much
    > >faster AND apply a lot more force. Which of course implies burning more
    > >calories and better heart workout.
    > >
    > >Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

    >
    > I think you are basically correct, but I would recommend swimming fins
    > for this. Diving fins are two big and two stiff.
    >


    No.

    Fins, either of the swimming training variety, or of the scuba variety, are
    much more efficient at converting muscular effort to forward motion. The
    increased speed one gets from wearing fins does not come from "applying more
    force" - a swimmer's leg muscles can be maximally utilised regardless of the
    size or orientation of the blade at the end. One does not "push more water"
    by wearing fins; and swimming propulsion is much more complex than such a
    simple application of the third law.
     
  6. Steph

    Steph Guest

    "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca:

    >
    > "Martin Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> [email protected] wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> >Also, I wonder a little about the physics of fins. Everyone knows
    >> >that with fins you swim faster, but I do not think they convert leg
    >> >motion into forward momentum more efficiently -- rather, fins allow
    >> >you to to apply more force with your legs. A fin pushes against more
    >> >water than a bare foot does, so it propels more water backward, and
    >> >in accordance with Newton's Third Law propels you forward faster.
    >> >But exactly because you are pushing against more water, you must
    >> >(given same up-down leg pace) apply more force. So the difference
    >> >between swimming with fins and without is the same as the difference
    >> >between pedaling a bike in 10th gear and in 1st gear -- given the
    >> >SAME LEG PACE, you move much faster AND apply a lot more force.
    >> >Which of course implies burning more calories and better heart
    >> >workout.
    >> >
    >> >Does that make sense, or am I missing something?

    >>
    >> I think you are basically correct, but I would recommend swimming
    >> fins for this. Diving fins are two big and two stiff.
    >>

    >
    > No.
    >
    > Fins, either of the swimming training variety, or of the scuba
    > variety, are much more efficient at converting muscular effort to
    > forward motion. The increased speed one gets from wearing fins does
    > not come from "applying more force" - a swimmer's leg muscles can be
    > maximally utilised regardless of the size or orientation of the blade
    > at the end. One does not "push more water" by wearing fins; and
    > swimming propulsion is much more complex than such a simple
    > application of the third law.
    >
    >
    >


    Seems to me that "pushing more water" is the direct result of the
    "applying more force". Fins of any type extend your natural foot -
    therefore moving the center of the fulcrum. Your leg muscles now apply
    the same amount of force and motion on one end, with and increase due to
    leverage at the tip of the fin -- resulting in additional force (and
    motion) and therefore moving more water.

    There are at least 4 major types of fins that I am aware of.
    First, Scuba fins which is usually much longer and stiffer. Normal motion
    using htese fins is a slow full motion leg movement allowing the fin to
    do the work.

    At many pools you will see long felxible fins as well (usually for
    snorkleing), which I am goin to skip here, they are basically the same as
    duck feet only more flexible.

    Next are the moorey boogie / duck feet variety. These are smaller than
    scuba fins with some flex at the tip for easier manuevrability (sp?). The
    allow for quick acceleration and prolonged cruising.

    Next category I am proposing are the "zoomers"; which have two types
    themselves. They make a stiffer one and a softer one to accomadate those
    with more/less foot flexibility and also for spritners versus long-
    distance swimmers with a slow kick beat.

    I used to workout with morey boogie fins, becuase they were what I had.
    Now I use blue zoomers, which help a lot for cross-training to the bike.
    When scuba diving in the carribean I did not need the full wetsuit, 25
    lbs of weight, etc. With only 9-10 lbs of weight I used shorter duck
    feet without any problem. I had expected to be more winded trying to keep
    up with my dive master (required on that resort even with a c-card);
    ironically I used my air at half the rate of the dive master and he
    called an end to the dive at 58 minutes while I still had above 1000 psi
    left (but I was getting a bit tired and cold after close to an hour).

    Anyway, back to the OP.
    I can swim 4.5 miles without stopping in the pool; not quite so far with
    zoomers and a kick board, and much much less with SCUBA fins -- even
    without adding 9 lbs of lead. This is mostly because at this point I have
    not conditioned my legs (quadraceps) to work that hard and long period.
     
  7. jtaylor

    jtaylor Guest

    "Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca:
    >
    > >
    > > "Martin Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >>
    > >> I think you are basically correct, but I would recommend swimming
    > >> fins for this. Diving fins are two big and two stiff.
    > >>

    > >
    > > No.
    > >
    > > Fins, either of the swimming training variety, or of the scuba
    > > variety, are much more efficient at converting muscular effort to
    > > forward motion. The increased speed one gets from wearing fins does
    > > not come from "applying more force" - a swimmer's leg muscles can be
    > > maximally utilised regardless of the size or orientation of the blade
    > > at the end. One does not "push more water" by wearing fins; and
    > > swimming propulsion is much more complex than such a simple
    > > application of the third law.
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Seems to me that "pushing more water" is the direct result of the
    > "applying more force".


    No.

    a) one can get the leg muscles to exert their maximum force regardless of
    the amount of water "moved". How does wearing a pair of fins make the leg
    muscles stronger? Magic?

    b) swimming propulsion is much more complex than simply "moving water".
     
  8. Martin Smith

    Martin Smith Guest

    Steph wrote:

    > "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca:
    >
    >
    >>"Martin Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>>[email protected] wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Also, I wonder a little about the physics of fins. Everyone knows
    >>>>that with fins you swim faster, but I do not think they convert leg
    >>>>motion into forward momentum more efficiently -- rather, fins allow
    >>>>you to to apply more force with your legs. A fin pushes against more
    >>>>water than a bare foot does, so it propels more water backward, and
    >>>>in accordance with Newton's Third Law propels you forward faster.
    >>>>But exactly because you are pushing against more water, you must
    >>>>(given same up-down leg pace) apply more force. So the difference
    >>>>between swimming with fins and without is the same as the difference
    >>>>between pedaling a bike in 10th gear and in 1st gear -- given the
    >>>>SAME LEG PACE, you move much faster AND apply a lot more force.
    >>>>Which of course implies burning more calories and better heart
    >>>>workout.
    >>>>
    >>>>Does that make sense, or am I missing something?
    >>>
    >>>I think you are basically correct, but I would recommend swimming
    >>>fins for this. Diving fins are two big and two stiff.
    >>>

    >>
    >>No.
    >>
    >>Fins, either of the swimming training variety, or of the scuba
    >>variety, are much more efficient at converting muscular effort to
    >>forward motion. The increased speed one gets from wearing fins does
    >>not come from "applying more force" - a swimmer's leg muscles can be
    >>maximally utilised regardless of the size or orientation of the blade
    >>at the end. One does not "push more water" by wearing fins; and
    >>swimming propulsion is much more complex than such a simple
    >>application of the third law.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > Seems to me that "pushing more water" is the direct result of the
    > "applying more force". Fins of any type extend your natural foot -
    > therefore moving the center of the fulcrum. Your leg muscles now apply
    > the same amount of force and motion on one end, with and increase due to
    > leverage at the tip of the fin -- resulting in additional force (and
    > motion) and therefore moving more water.


    You're wasting your time arguing with him. At least Artindale has ADD as
    an excuse. You're right, though. With fins, if you kick at the same
    tempo you use without fins, you're moving a much larger surface through
    the water, so you have to use more force.

    > There are at least 4 major types of fins that I am aware of.
    > First, Scuba fins which is usually much longer and stiffer. Normal motion
    > using htese fins is a slow full motion leg movement allowing the fin to
    > do the work.
    >
    > At many pools you will see long felxible fins as well (usually for
    > snorkleing), which I am goin to skip here, they are basically the same as
    > duck feet only more flexible.
    >
    > Next are the moorey boogie / duck feet variety. These are smaller than
    > scuba fins with some flex at the tip for easier manuevrability (sp?). The
    > allow for quick acceleration and prolonged cruising.
    >
    > Next category I am proposing are the "zoomers"; which have two types
    > themselves. They make a stiffer one and a softer one to accomadate those
    > with more/less foot flexibility and also for spritners versus long-
    > distance swimmers with a slow kick beat.
    >
    > I used to workout with morey boogie fins, becuase they were what I had.
    > Now I use blue zoomers, which help a lot for cross-training to the bike.
    > When scuba diving in the carribean I did not need the full wetsuit, 25
    > lbs of weight, etc. With only 9-10 lbs of weight I used shorter duck
    > feet without any problem. I had expected to be more winded trying to keep
    > up with my dive master (required on that resort even with a c-card);
    > ironically I used my air at half the rate of the dive master and he
    > called an end to the dive at 58 minutes while I still had above 1000 psi
    > left (but I was getting a bit tired and cold after close to an hour).
    >
    > Anyway, back to the OP.
    > I can swim 4.5 miles without stopping in the pool; not quite so far with
    > zoomers and a kick board, and much much less with SCUBA fins -- even
    > without adding 9 lbs of lead. This is mostly because at this point I have
    > not conditioned my legs (quadraceps) to work that hard and long period.
    >
     
  9. jtaylor

    jtaylor Guest

    "Martin Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > >>>I think you are basically correct, but I would recommend swimming
    > >>>fins for this. Diving fins are two big and two stiff.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>No.
    > >>
    > >>Fins, either of the swimming training variety, or of the scuba
    > >>variety, are much more efficient at converting muscular effort to
    > >>forward motion. The increased speed one gets from wearing fins does
    > >>not come from "applying more force" - a swimmer's leg muscles can be
    > >>maximally utilised regardless of the size or orientation of the blade
    > >>at the end. One does not "push more water" by wearing fins; and
    > >>swimming propulsion is much more complex than such a simple
    > >>application of the third law.
    > >>



    > You're wasting your time arguing with him. At least Artindale has ADD as
    > an excuse. You're right, though. With fins, if you kick at the same
    > tempo you use without fins, you're moving a much larger surface through
    > the water, so you have to use more force.
    >


    Martin is adding more conditions that

    a) were not in the original poster's question

    b) still do not support his position.

    A person kicking, no matter if they have fins or feet, can only cause their
    muscles to exert a certain amount of force.

    IF a person wears fins and IF they kick at the "same tempo" and IF their
    feet move the same distance for each kick - THEN they will be exerting more
    force. Since the muscles are at their limit in the first situation (feet),
    then at least one of those IFs must be false. Martin has conveniently left
    one out.
     
  10. Steph

    Steph Guest

    "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca:

    >
    > "Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected].75.164.119...
    >> "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in
    >> news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca:
    >>
    >> >
    >> > "Martin Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> >>
    >> >> I think you are basically correct, but I would recommend swimming
    >> >> fins for this. Diving fins are two big and two stiff.
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> > No.
    >> >
    >> > Fins, either of the swimming training variety, or of the scuba
    >> > variety, are much more efficient at converting muscular effort to
    >> > forward motion. The increased speed one gets from wearing fins
    >> > does not come from "applying more force" - a swimmer's leg muscles
    >> > can be maximally utilised regardless of the size or orientation of
    >> > the blade at the end. One does not "push more water" by wearing
    >> > fins; and swimming propulsion is much more complex than such a
    >> > simple application of the third law.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
    >> Seems to me that "pushing more water" is the direct result of the
    >> "applying more force".

    >
    > No.
    >
    > a) one can get the leg muscles to exert their maximum force regardless
    > of the amount of water "moved". How does wearing a pair of fins make
    > the leg muscles stronger? Magic?


    Wow how did the previous posts get broken down to these questions?
    Consider a constant kick range of motion and force without fins.
    Then add fins but keep the exertion level the same and the rate same as
    above. You have extended the surface area (the fin) that moves with each
    beat/stroke, resulting in an increase in water pushed or moved.

    In my case I have virtually no kick, so when i switch to fins and
    kickboard that is all legs, they get stronger and gain endurance
    hopefully. no magic.

    > b) swimming propulsion is much more complex than simply "moving
    > water".


    Very true. Yet it is simple of terms of drag versus force.
     
  11. Steph

    Steph Guest

    "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca:

    >
    > "Martin Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >> >>>I think you are basically correct, but I would recommend swimming
    >> >>>fins for this. Diving fins are two big and two stiff.
    >> >>>
    >> >>
    >> >>No.
    >> >>
    >> >>Fins, either of the swimming training variety, or of the scuba
    >> >>variety, are much more efficient at converting muscular effort to
    >> >>forward motion. The increased speed one gets from wearing fins
    >> >>does not come from "applying more force" - a swimmer's leg muscles
    >> >>can be maximally utilised regardless of the size or orientation of
    >> >>the blade at the end. One does not "push more water" by wearing
    >> >>fins; and swimming propulsion is much more complex than such a
    >> >>simple application of the third law.
    >> >>

    >
    >
    >> You're wasting your time arguing with him. At least Artindale has ADD
    >> as an excuse. You're right, though. With fins, if you kick at the
    >> same tempo you use without fins, you're moving a much larger surface
    >> through the water, so you have to use more force.
    >>

    >
    > Martin is adding more conditions that
    >
    > a) were not in the original poster's question
    >
    > b) still do not support his position.
    >
    > A person kicking, no matter if they have fins or feet, can only cause
    > their muscles to exert a certain amount of force.
    >
    > IF a person wears fins and IF they kick at the "same tempo" and IF
    > their feet move the same distance for each kick - THEN they will be
    > exerting more force. Since the muscles are at their limit in the
    > first situation (feet), then at least one of those IFs must be false.
    > Martin has conveniently left one out.
    >
    >
    >



    Sorry that was how I read it, and I don't see why one of those IF's
    must be false.
     
  12. Martin Smith

    Martin Smith Guest

    Steph wrote:

    > "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca:
    >
    >
    >>"Martin Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>>I think you are basically correct, but I would recommend swimming
    >>>>>>fins for this. Diving fins are two big and two stiff.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>No.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Fins, either of the swimming training variety, or of the scuba
    >>>>>variety, are much more efficient at converting muscular effort to
    >>>>>forward motion. The increased speed one gets from wearing fins
    >>>>>does not come from "applying more force" - a swimmer's leg muscles
    >>>>>can be maximally utilised regardless of the size or orientation of
    >>>>>the blade at the end. One does not "push more water" by wearing
    >>>>>fins; and swimming propulsion is much more complex than such a
    >>>>>simple application of the third law.
    >>>>>

    >>
    >>
    >>>You're wasting your time arguing with him. At least Artindale has ADD
    >>>as an excuse. You're right, though. With fins, if you kick at the
    >>>same tempo you use without fins, you're moving a much larger surface
    >>>through the water, so you have to use more force.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Martin is adding more conditions that
    >>
    >>a) were not in the original poster's question
    >>
    >>b) still do not support his position.
    >>
    >>A person kicking, no matter if they have fins or feet, can only cause
    >>their muscles to exert a certain amount of force.
    >>
    >>IF a person wears fins and IF they kick at the "same tempo" and IF
    >>their feet move the same distance for each kick - THEN they will be
    >>exerting more force. Since the muscles are at their limit in the
    >>first situation (feet), then at least one of those IFs must be false.
    >>Martin has conveniently left one out.


    Maybe jtaylor has borderline personality disorder.


    > Sorry that was how I read it, and I don't see why one of those IF's
    > must be false.


    It is only false if you accept his premise that swimmers normally kick
    "at their limit," which, of course, they don't. In fact, for the
    overwhelming majority of swimmers, kicking "at their limit" would be a
    serious waste of energy.

    So, when you add the lever and kick at the same tempo, you have to exert
    more force, because you are pushing against a lot more water. That's why
    they call it a lever.
     
  13. Martin Smith

    Martin Smith Guest

    Steph wrote:

    > "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca:
    >
    >> "Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>> "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in
    >>> news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> "Martin Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>>
    >>>>> I think you are basically correct, but I would recommend swimming
    >>>>> fins for this. Diving fins are two big and two stiff.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> No.
    >>>>
    >>>> Fins, either of the swimming training variety, or of the scuba
    >>>> variety, are much more efficient at converting muscular effort to
    >>>> forward motion. The increased speed one gets from wearing fins
    >>>> does not come from "applying more force" - a swimmer's leg muscles
    >>>> can be maximally utilised regardless of the size or orientation of
    >>>> the blade at the end. One does not "push more water" by wearing
    >>>> fins; and swimming propulsion is much more complex than such a
    >>>> simple application of the third law.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Seems to me that "pushing more water" is the direct result of the
    >>> "applying more force".

    >>
    >>
    >> No.
    >>
    >> a) one can get the leg muscles to exert their maximum force regardless
    >> of the amount of water "moved". How does wearing a pair of fins make
    >> the leg muscles stronger? Magic?

    >
    >
    >
    > Wow how did the previous posts get broken down to these questions?
    > Consider a constant kick range of motion and force without fins.
    > Then add fins but keep the exertion level the same and the rate same

    as above. You have extended the surface area (the fin) that moves with
    each beat/stroke, resulting in an increase in water pushed or moved.
    >
    > In my case I have virtually no kick, so when i switch to fins and

    kickboard that is all legs, they get stronger and gain endurance
    hopefully. no magic.


    It is because of this: F = M*(V/T)

    You can look at it in two ways. Whichever way you choose, F increases.
    If M is you, it doesn't change when you put on fins, but V does. You go
    faster. F must increase. If M is the water you move with the fins, then
    it increases when you put on fins, even if you hold V of the kick
    constant. F must increase.

    The pedant's point uses the second way with V of the kick already at its
    max, when you are swimming without fins. Then when you put on fins, you
    can't increase V of the kick, of course, so because M of the water moved
    by the kick increases V must fall and F doesn't change. But nobody
    actually does that, so the pedant's point is true but of no interest to
    any real world swimmers.

    As my friend Michelle Nichols formerly of the Palisades-Malibu YMCA
    Masters once said: "Everyone's faster with fins."

    >> b) swimming propulsion is much more complex than simply "moving
    >> water".

    >
    >
    >
    > Very true. Yet it is simple of terms of drag versus force.
    >
     
  14. > I can swim 4.5 miles without stopping in the pool; not quite so far with
    > zoomers and a kick board, and much much less with SCUBA fins -- even
    > without adding 9 lbs of lead. This is mostly because at this point I have
    > not conditioned my legs (quadraceps) to work that hard and long period.


    Thanks for the answers, and no, I never swim "at maximum rate" without
    fins -- it's aquatic equivalent of sprinting, and would exhaust me very
    quickly. So all those IF's Jtaylor lists are entirely reasonable.

    Since my goals are directly related to diving -- strengthen the heart
    and the quadraceps, -- I think I will continue with this regimen.
    Wearing a weight belt for prolonged periods of time can cause problems
    if swimming face down -- which I do not do for that very reason. On my
    back it's fairly comfortable.
     
  15. Steph

    Steph Guest

    [email protected] wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    >> I can swim 4.5 miles without stopping in the pool; not quite so far
    >> with zoomers and a kick board, and much much less with SCUBA fins --
    >> even without adding 9 lbs of lead. This is mostly because at this
    >> point I have not conditioned my legs (quadraceps) to work that hard
    >> and long period.

    >
    > Thanks for the answers, and no, I never swim "at maximum rate" without
    > fins -- it's aquatic equivalent of sprinting, and would exhaust me
    > very quickly. So all those IF's Jtaylor lists are entirely reasonable.
    >
    > Since my goals are directly related to diving -- strengthen the heart
    > and the quadraceps, -- I think I will continue with this regimen.
    > Wearing a weight belt for prolonged periods of time can cause problems
    > if swimming face down -- which I do not do for that very reason. On my
    > back it's fairly comfortable.
    >
    >


    The added weight would be more likely to change you body position (and
    cause a more strenuous workout ) then increase your workout strain based
    on increased mass alone.

    When diving the added weight is cumbersome when you need to roll your
    body or manuever through a wreck for example, but once in the water and
    have your buoyancy in check it matters fairly little to me whether I am
    carrying 20 lbs in cold water versus 7 in warm (and the different
    wetsuit thicknesses that accompany).

    The only swimmers I have seen to use weight belts in the pool are
    synchronized swimmers. they are building strength in their legs to
    better lift more of their bodies out of the water.

    If you want to swim with the belt/weight go for it, but it seems
    unecessary; simply working out with your scuba fins and keeping a
    constant pace for longer periods should accomplish what you are looking
    for.
     
  16. Martin Smith

    Martin Smith Guest

    Steph <[email protected]_CUT> wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote in
    >news:[email protected]legroups.com:
    >
    >>> I can swim 4.5 miles without stopping in the pool; not quite so far
    >>> with zoomers and a kick board, and much much less with SCUBA fins --
    >>> even without adding 9 lbs of lead. This is mostly because at this
    >>> point I have not conditioned my legs (quadraceps) to work that hard
    >>> and long period.

    >>
    >> Thanks for the answers, and no, I never swim "at maximum rate" without
    >> fins -- it's aquatic equivalent of sprinting, and would exhaust me
    >> very quickly. So all those IF's Jtaylor lists are entirely reasonable.
    >>
    >> Since my goals are directly related to diving -- strengthen the heart
    >> and the quadraceps, -- I think I will continue with this regimen.
    >> Wearing a weight belt for prolonged periods of time can cause problems
    >> if swimming face down -- which I do not do for that very reason. On my
    >> back it's fairly comfortable.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >The added weight would be more likely to change you body position (and
    >cause a more strenuous workout ) then increase your workout strain based
    >on increased mass alone.


    I agree. Swimming with a weightbelt might cause stress injuries due to
    forces pushing the body out of position. If what you want is increased
    drag, I would use a drag suit.
     
  17. Steph

    Steph Guest

    Martin Smith <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > Steph <[email protected]_CUT> wrote:
    >
    >>[email protected] wrote in
    >>news:[email protected]:
    >>
    >>>> I can swim 4.5 miles without stopping in the pool; not quite so far
    >>>> with zoomers and a kick board, and much much less with SCUBA fins --
    >>>> even without adding 9 lbs of lead. This is mostly because at this
    >>>> point I have not conditioned my legs (quadraceps) to work that hard
    >>>> and long period.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for the answers, and no, I never swim "at maximum rate"

    without
    >>> fins -- it's aquatic equivalent of sprinting, and would exhaust me
    >>> very quickly. So all those IF's Jtaylor lists are entirely

    reasonable.
    >>>
    >>> Since my goals are directly related to diving -- strengthen the heart
    >>> and the quadraceps, -- I think I will continue with this regimen.
    >>> Wearing a weight belt for prolonged periods of time can cause

    problems
    >>> if swimming face down -- which I do not do for that very reason. On

    my
    >>> back it's fairly comfortable.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>The added weight would be more likely to change you body position (and
    >>cause a more strenuous workout ) then increase your workout strain

    based
    >>on increased mass alone.

    >
    > I agree. Swimming with a weightbelt might cause stress injuries due to
    > forces pushing the body out of position. If what you want is increased
    > drag, I would use a drag suit.
    >
    >


    Definately.
    An increase in drag would be much preferable from what I know versus
    increasing the mass of an object in the water (which would affect your
    body center of gravity and body positioning). The resistance of loose
    shorts or a drag suit would be constant versus the increased resistance
    to come up to speed after leaving the wall and then decreasing your speed
    before turning around

    And to simply build cardio capacity and leg strength/endurance you only
    need to work out with your stiff fins.
     
Loading...
Loading...