Swimming not good for weightloss?

In article <[email hidden]>,

BlueSun said:

Hi everyone,

Ive been swimming twice a week and really enjoying it but a dietician
recently told me that swimming is not good for weightloss. I did a bit of
googling and found this article which is really interesting:
http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm There are many
other sites out there with similar info.

Im also treadmilling a couple of days per week, but now Im thinking my
swimming is more a hinderance than a help on my weightloss journey. On the
other hand I guess *any* excercise is better than none, especially if Im
watching my food intake. What's your opinion?

Caitlin

Interesting article. Now, if it's really the cold that makes people hungry,
wouldn't a hot shower or sauna afterwards cure it?

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

In article <[email hidden]>,

BlueSun said:

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm

This article totally ignores the fact that, while immersed in water,
you're bleeding heat about 20 times as fast as you would in air of the
same temperature. (They do say that it "keeps you cool" more than
running, which isn't my point.)

You burn one HELL of a lot of calories while swimming, surfing, diving,
or just ditzing around in the pool. This is basal rate, quite apart
from whatever you burn from the activity.

If your other activities are the same, and your intake is the same,
you'll definitely burn more calories swimming that almost anything else,
and should lose weight faster. That study incorporates a lot of other
variables that may be at work.

KeS

In a similar note, drinking a pint of diet soda is a net loss of around
15 calories - if you figure it goes in at 0 Celsius and comes out at
close to 50. 😉

BlueSun said:

Hi everyone,

Ive been swimming twice a week and really enjoying it but a dietician
recently told me that swimming is not good for weightloss. I did a bit of
googling and found this article which is really interesting:
http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm There are many
other sites out there with similar info.

In a word, nonsense.
I went from 97kg to 72 kg swimming 4 days/week in the 1980s. Took me 6
months.

Quoted message said:

Im also treadmilling a couple of days per week, but now Im thinking my
swimming is more a hinderance than a help on my weightloss journey. On the
other hand I guess *any* excercise is better than none, especially if Im
watching my food intake. What's your opinion?

Caitlin

I lose more weight with the treadmill than with swimming. But both lead to
weight loss.

gtoomey

Swimming is great for weight loss, as long as you eat less.

--
Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW

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

Quoted message said:

Hi everyone,

Ive been swimming twice a week and really enjoying it but a dietician
recently told me that swimming is not good for weightloss. I did a bit of
googling and found this article which is really interesting:
http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm There are many
other sites out there with similar info.

Im also treadmilling a couple of days per week, but now Im thinking my
swimming is more a hinderance than a help on my weightloss journey. On the
other hand I guess *any* excercise is better than none, especially if Im
watching my food intake. What's your opinion?

Caitlin

--
BlueSun
kgs: 115/89/70
lbs: 253/195.8/154.3
height: 5'8", 173cms

My view is that you have to pick something that you find interesting to do. If
you find treadmilling more interesting than swimming - although I doubt it -
then do more treadmilling.

If the only thing you want out of exercise is to burn the max amount of
calories, then I suggest that you change whatever exercise you're doing every
week. They say you become more and more efficient in doing what you're doing
because you're becoming better and better, that you can manage to do the same
with fewer calories.

BlueSun said:

Hi everyone,

Ive been swimming twice a week and really enjoying it but a dietician
recently told me that swimming is not good for weightloss. I did a bit of
googling and found this article which is really interesting:
http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm There are many
other sites out there with similar info.

Im also treadmilling a couple of days per week, but now Im thinking my
swimming is more a hinderance than a help on my weightloss journey. On the
other hand I guess *any* excercise is better than none, especially if Im
watching my food intake. What's your opinion?

Caitlin

I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal activity that
is very stenuous and done long enough. For me, cycling long distances (at
high heart rate due to hills) and for many hours didn't help with weight
loss. The reason for that is because doing so made me very hungry and ended
up with me eating way more food to replace the burnt calories...and also,
and even a much bigger problem than just being hungry, I'd go hypoglycemic
afterwards (after doing about 50 miles or so of cycling). Then, eating LC
food just didn't help...my body needed carbs or I'd be zonked for hours and
hours. Trying to balance expenditure with intake when you're doing extreme
levels of exercise is really hard

OTOH, if I scale back the cycling to say 20 to 30 miles at a time, none of
that stuff happens, meaning: I can eat normally and don't find that I go
hypo and need all of those carbs.

I'm not a swimmer....but I have am impression that swimming is a hard
activity...so my guess is that if you want to use it to lose weight, you
must do it in such a way as to be able to control your diet. That may mean
controlling the amount of time you spend swimming while you're working on
weight loss. Also, incorporate other activities in too, such as weight
lifting.

BlueSun wrote:
:: Hi everyone,
::
:: Ive been swimming twice a week and really enjoying it but a dietician
:: recently told me that swimming is not good for weightloss. I did a
:: bit of googling and found this article which is really interesting:
:: http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm There are
:: many other sites out there with similar info.
::
:: Im also treadmilling a couple of days per week, but now Im thinking
:: my swimming is more a hinderance than a help on my weightloss
:: journey. On the other hand I guess *any* excercise is better than
:: none, especially if Im watching my food intake. What's your opinion?
::
:: Caitlin
::
:: --
:: BlueSun
:: kgs: 115/89/70
:: lbs: 253/195.8/154.3
:: height: 5'8", 173cms

Kevin Stevens wrote:
:: In article <[email hidden]>,
:: "BlueSun" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm
::
:: This article totally ignores the fact that, while immersed in water,
:: you're bleeding heat about 20 times as fast as you would in air of
:: the same temperature. (They do say that it "keeps you cool" more
:: than running, which isn't my point.)
::
:: You burn one HELL of a lot of calories while swimming, surfing,
:: diving, or just ditzing around in the pool. This is basal rate,
:: quite apart from whatever you burn from the activity.
::
:: If your other activities are the same, and your intake is the same,
:: you'll definitely burn more calories swimming that almost anything
:: else, and should lose weight faster. That study incorporates a lot
:: of other variables that may be at work.

You'll only lose weight faster IF you are able to control diet. If the
swimming itself stimulates appetite ( and I think all sustained strenuous
activitity does) weight loss may not occur.

::
:: KeS
::
:: In a similar note, drinking a pint of diet soda is a net loss of
:: around 15 calories - if you figure it goes in at 0 Celsius and comes
:: out at close to 50. 😉

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 08:58:42 -0500, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal activity
that
is very stenuous and done long enough. For me, cycling long distances
(at
high heart rate due to hills) and for many hours didn't help with weight
loss. The reason for that is because doing so made me very hungry and
ended
up with me eating way more food to replace the burnt calories...and also,
and even a much bigger problem than just being hungry, I'd go
hypoglycemic
afterwards (after doing about 50 miles or so of cycling). Then, eating
LC
food just didn't help...my body needed carbs or I'd be zonked for hours
and
hours. Trying to balance expenditure with intake when you're doing
extreme
levels of exercise is really hard

Interesting. While I lost some weight last year cycling, I didn't lose as
much as I thought I would. I had the same problem -- I got really hungry
and would eat more than I normally would, and I also had to have higher
amounts of carbs on the days before and after a longer ride. (Shorter
rides don't seem to be that bad.) I also think that riding long and hard
is just physically exhausting. I'd be exhausted the day of my ride and
for a day or so afterward. The day of the century I did was unbelievable
-- my girlfriend was worried because I was so tired after the ride that
she called my house several times to make sure I got home.

I think that trying to lose weight and perform high intensity aerobic
exercise is hard because the calculations are hard -- how much do you eat,
when do you eat, and how many carbs do you eat? On the other hand, I
might ride two centuries this year, so we'll see.

--
Bob in CT

Gregory Toomey wrote:
:: BlueSun wrote:
::
::: Hi everyone,
:::
::: Ive been swimming twice a week and really enjoying it but a
::: dietician recently told me that swimming is not good for
::: weightloss. I did a bit of googling and found this article which is
::: really interesting:
::: http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm There are
::: many other sites out there with similar info.
::
:: In a word, nonsense.
:: I went from 97kg to 72 kg swimming 4 days/week in the 1980s. Took me
:: 6 months.
::
::: Im also treadmilling a couple of days per week, but now Im thinking
::: my swimming is more a hinderance than a help on my weightloss
::: journey. On the other hand I guess *any* excercise is better than
::: none, especially if Im watching my food intake. What's your opinion?
:::
::: Caitlin
:::
::
:: I lose more weight with the treadmill than with swimming. But both
:: lead to weight loss.

You only lost weight because you didn't overconsume food as a result of your
exercise. Exercise does not automatically ensure weight loss.

Roger Zoul said:

You only lost weight because you didn't overconsume food as a result of your
exercise. Exercise does not automatically ensure weight loss.

Sometimes the body gets hungrier during prolonged exercise simply because
you're working your body more than you used to. Your body thinks that
because you're working out more, you must need more food energy - so it
sends you hunger signals. During this event I remind my body that no
thank you, I ate that excess energy years ago and it's residing on my hips.

Disclaimer: the above is my opinion and I make no claims that it is a
universal fact 😉

Roger Zoul said:

Gregory Toomey wrote:
:: BlueSun wrote:
::
::: Hi everyone,
:::
::: Ive been swimming twice a week and really enjoying it but a
::: dietician recently told me that swimming is not good for
::: weightloss. I did a bit of googling and found this article which is
::: really interesting:
::: http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm There are
::: many other sites out there with similar info.
::
:: In a word, nonsense.
:: I went from 97kg to 72 kg swimming 4 days/week in the 1980s. Took me
:: 6 months.
::
::: Im also treadmilling a couple of days per week, but now Im thinking
::: my swimming is more a hinderance than a help on my weightloss
::: journey. On the other hand I guess *any* excercise is better than
::: none, especially if Im watching my food intake. What's your opinion?
:::
::: Caitlin
:::
::
:: I lose more weight with the treadmill than with swimming. But both
:: lead to weight loss.

You only lost weight because you didn't overconsume food as a result of
your
exercise. Exercise does not automatically ensure weight loss.

Thanks for your miraculous observation.

gtoomey

Gregory Toomey wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: Gregory Toomey wrote:
::::: BlueSun wrote:
:::::
:::::: Hi everyone,
::::::
:::::: Ive been swimming twice a week and really enjoying it but a
:::::: dietician recently told me that swimming is not good for
:::::: weightloss. I did a bit of googling and found this article which
:::::: is really interesting:
:::::: http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm There
:::::: are many other sites out there with similar info.
:::::
::::: In a word, nonsense.
::::: I went from 97kg to 72 kg swimming 4 days/week in the 1980s. Took
::::: me 6 months.
:::::
:::::: Im also treadmilling a couple of days per week, but now Im
:::::: thinking my swimming is more a hinderance than a help on my
:::::: weightloss journey. On the other hand I guess *any* excercise is
:::::: better than none, especially if Im watching my food intake.
:::::: What's your opinion?
::::::
:::::: Caitlin
::::::
:::::
::::: I lose more weight with the treadmill than with swimming. But both
::::: lead to weight loss.
:::
::: You only lost weight because you didn't overconsume food as a
::: result of your
::: exercise. Exercise does not automatically ensure weight loss.
::
:: Thanks for your miraculous observation.

Yeah....it's a shame it had to be made...

What's your opinion?
:
: Caitlin
:

not true!

Roger Zoul said:

:: If your other activities are the same, and your intake is the same,
:: you'll definitely burn more calories swimming that almost anything
:: else, and should lose weight faster. That study incorporates a lot
:: of other variables that may be at work.

You'll only lose weight faster IF you are able to control diet. If the
swimming itself stimulates appetite ( and I think all sustained strenuous
activitity does) weight loss may not occur.

Yes, you just recapitulated what I said: "if your intake is the same",
"other variables may be at work".

KeS

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

Quoted message said:

I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal activity that
is very stenuous and done long enough. For me, cycling long distances (at
high heart rate due to hills) and for many hours didn't help with weight
loss. The reason for that is because doing so made me very hungry and

ended

Quoted message said:

up with me eating way more food to replace the burnt calories...and also,
and even a much bigger problem than just being hungry, I'd go hypoglycemic
afterwards (after doing about 50 miles or so of cycling). Then, eating LC
food just didn't help...my body needed carbs or I'd be zonked for hours

and

Quoted message said:

hours. Trying to balance expenditure with intake when you're doing

extreme

Quoted message said:

levels of exercise is really hard

Not to open a can of worms, but that is one reason why most cycling coaches
recommend against LC. Any form of endurance exercise requires carbs, and if
you deplete your glycogen stores, you'll get the dreaded "bonk". We all fall
into this nasty state from time to time (typically from trying to go too far
on too little fuel, or simply not eating enough for the level of effort).
But, it would seem to be an even more prevalent problem with LC'ers.

Did you consume any carbs on your 50 mile rides? If you're riding 50 miles
of hills, there's really no way to do that without taking on carbs during
the ride (most recommend around 200-300 calories per hour, for rides over 90
minutes or so).

Quoted message said:

OTOH, if I scale back the cycling to say 20 to 30 miles at a time, none of
that stuff happens, meaning: I can eat normally and don't find that I go
hypo and need all of those carbs.

True - on a short ride, your natural glycogen levels won't be depleted even
if you don't consume carbs during the ride. However, for weight loss,
you'll burn more calories by riding longer distances.

GG

Quoted message said:

I'm not a swimmer....but I have am impression that swimming is a hard
activity...so my guess is that if you want to use it to lose weight, you
must do it in such a way as to be able to control your diet. That may

mean

Quoted message said:

controlling the amount of time you spend swimming while you're working on
weight loss. Also, incorporate other activities in too, such as weight
lifting.

BlueSun wrote:
:: Hi everyone,
::
:: Ive been swimming twice a week and really enjoying it but a dietician
:: recently told me that swimming is not good for weightloss. I did a
:: bit of googling and found this article which is really interesting:
:: http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm There are
:: many other sites out there with similar info.
::
:: Im also treadmilling a couple of days per week, but now Im thinking
:: my swimming is more a hinderance than a help on my weightloss
:: journey. On the other hand I guess *any* excercise is better than
:: none, especially if Im watching my food intake. What's your opinion?
::
:: Caitlin
::
:: --
:: BlueSun
:: kgs: 115/89/70
:: lbs: 253/195.8/154.3
:: height: 5'8", 173cms

GaryG said:

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

Quoted message said:

I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal activity
that
is very stenuous and done long enough. For me, cycling long distances
(at
high heart rate due to hills) and for many hours didn't help with weight
loss. The reason for that is because doing so made me very hungry and

ended

Quoted message said:

up with me eating way more food to replace the burnt calories...and
also,
and even a much bigger problem than just being hungry, I'd go
hypoglycemic
afterwards (after doing about 50 miles or so of cycling). Then, eating
LC
food just didn't help...my body needed carbs or I'd be zonked for hours

and

Quoted message said:

hours. Trying to balance expenditure with intake when you're doing

extreme

Quoted message said:

levels of exercise is really hard

Not to open a can of worms, but that is one reason why most cycling
coaches
recommend against LC. Any form of endurance exercise requires carbs,
and if
you deplete your glycogen stores, you'll get the dreaded "bonk". We all
fall
into this nasty state from time to time (typically from trying to go too
far
on too little fuel, or simply not eating enough for the level of effort).
But, it would seem to be an even more prevalent problem with LC'ers.

Did you consume any carbs on your 50 mile rides? If you're riding 50
miles
of hills, there's really no way to do that without taking on carbs during
the ride (most recommend around 200-300 calories per hour, for rides
over 90
minutes or so).

I took in about 20g carbs per hour of riding, along with protein before
and after (and during, if the ride was long). At no time did I ever feel
burnt because of biking. Note, however, that I ate fruit the day before
long rides. I also took in extra carbs immediately after finishing the
ride.

While it's true that most cycling coaches don't recommend low carb, I've
found that I can get by with way, way less (fewer?) carbs than
recommended. Most carb amounts are driven by athletes who ride daily. As
I ride 3-4 days per week (with 2 days lifting), relatively low carb still
works well. I'd typically be low carb for Mon, Tues, Wed, Thurs, then I'd
eat some fruit Friday and Saturday I'd be relatively high carb (no plates
of pasta but other carbs). Sunday, I tried to have a moderate carb day.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OTOH, if I scale back the cycling to say 20 to 30 miles at a time, none
of
that stuff happens, meaning: I can eat normally and don't find that I go
hypo and need all of those carbs.

True - on a short ride, your natural glycogen levels won't be depleted
even
if you don't consume carbs during the ride. However, for weight loss,
you'll burn more calories by riding longer distances.

GG

Hmmm...I'm not sure about this. During my riding season last year, I
really didn't lose much weight at all. I was actually quite shocked.
This year, I'm going to watch the amount I eat after riding, with an
emphasis on getting enough carbs but not too many and fewer calories.

--
Bob in CT

[email hidden] wrote:
:: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::::: If your other activities are the same, and your intake is the
::::: same, you'll definitely burn more calories swimming that almost
::::: anything else, and should lose weight faster. That study
::::: incorporates a lot of other variables that may be at work.
:::
::: You'll only lose weight faster IF you are able to control diet. If
::: the swimming itself stimulates appetite ( and I think all sustained
::: strenuous activitity does) weight loss may not occur.
::
:: Yes, you just recapitulated what I said: "if your intake is the
:: same", "other variables may be at work".

Ah...but I also said something very different. Sustained strenous activity
can very definitely stimulate appetite...

::
:: KeS

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

Quoted message said:

GaryG said:

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

Quoted message said:

I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal activity
that
is very stenuous and done long enough. For me, cycling long distances
(at
high heart rate due to hills) and for many hours didn't help with

weight

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

loss. The reason for that is because doing so made me very hungry and

ended

Quoted message said:

up with me eating way more food to replace the burnt calories...and
also,
and even a much bigger problem than just being hungry, I'd go
hypoglycemic
afterwards (after doing about 50 miles or so of cycling). Then, eating
LC
food just didn't help...my body needed carbs or I'd be zonked for hours

and

Quoted message said:

hours. Trying to balance expenditure with intake when you're doing

extreme

Quoted message said:

levels of exercise is really hard

Not to open a can of worms, but that is one reason why most cycling
coaches
recommend against LC. Any form of endurance exercise requires carbs,
and if
you deplete your glycogen stores, you'll get the dreaded "bonk". We all
fall
into this nasty state from time to time (typically from trying to go too
far
on too little fuel, or simply not eating enough for the level of

effort).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But, it would seem to be an even more prevalent problem with LC'ers.

Did you consume any carbs on your 50 mile rides? If you're riding 50
miles
of hills, there's really no way to do that without taking on carbs

during

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the ride (most recommend around 200-300 calories per hour, for rides
over 90
minutes or so).

I took in about 20g carbs per hour of riding, along with protein before
and after (and during, if the ride was long). At no time did I ever feel
burnt because of biking. Note, however, that I ate fruit the day before
long rides. I also took in extra carbs immediately after finishing the
ride.

While it's true that most cycling coaches don't recommend low carb, I've
found that I can get by with way, way less (fewer?) carbs than
recommended. Most carb amounts are driven by athletes who ride daily. As
I ride 3-4 days per week (with 2 days lifting), relatively low carb still
works well. I'd typically be low carb for Mon, Tues, Wed, Thurs, then I'd
eat some fruit Friday and Saturday I'd be relatively high carb (no plates
of pasta but other carbs). Sunday, I tried to have a moderate carb day.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OTOH, if I scale back the cycling to say 20 to 30 miles at a time, none
of
that stuff happens, meaning: I can eat normally and don't find that I

go

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hypo and need all of those carbs.

True - on a short ride, your natural glycogen levels won't be depleted
even
if you don't consume carbs during the ride. However, for weight loss,
you'll burn more calories by riding longer distances.

GG

Hmmm...I'm not sure about this. During my riding season last year, I
really didn't lose much weight at all. I was actually quite shocked.
This year, I'm going to watch the amount I eat after riding, with an
emphasis on getting enough carbs but not too many and fewer calories.

That's actually a fairly common experience, regardless of LC. I've
communicated with quite a few cyclists who put in 100-200 miles per week,
and still can't seem to lose any weight. Given that those distances should
burn 4000-8000 calories per week, I have to assume that they are overeating.
Whether this is due to a hunger response from the exercise itself, or from
an illusory "reward" mode of thinking ("I just rode my bike 30 miles, so now
I can have a burger and fries"😉, or poor food choices (e.g., drinking
Gatorade all day long) is hard to say.

FWIW, I lost 10 lbs pretty easily last season with cycling as my primary
exercise. But, I stopped "rewarding" myself for each ride, and became much
more aware of what I was eating, and how much. I suspect my weight loss was
about 50-50 (exercise-diet).

GG

Quoted message said:

--
Bob in CT

GaryG wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: I think the points of the article will apply to any phyiscal
::: activity that is very stenuous and done long enough. For me,
::: cycling long distances (at high heart rate due to hills) and for
::: many hours didn't help with weight loss. The reason for that is
::: because doing so made me very hungry and ended up with me eating
::: way more food to replace the burnt calories...and also, and even a
::: much bigger problem than just being hungry, I'd go hypoglycemic
::: afterwards (after doing about 50 miles or so of cycling). Then,
::: eating LC food just didn't help...my body needed carbs or I'd be
::: zonked for hours and hours. Trying to balance expenditure with
::: intake when you're doing extreme levels of exercise is really hard
::
:: Not to open a can of worms, but that is one reason why most cycling
:: coaches recommend against LC. Any form of endurance exercise
:: requires carbs, and if you deplete your glycogen stores, you'll get
:: the dreaded "bonk". We all fall into this nasty state from time to
:: time (typically from trying to go too far on too little fuel, or
:: simply not eating enough for the level of effort). But, it would
:: seem to be an even more prevalent problem with LC'ers.

Right. I learned the hard way. However, I will point out that some here
can apparently ride on much less carbs taht I can. Pat in TX is one
example. Perhaps he is simply better adapted to LC than I.

But for me, LC will be a way of life. I'm a type 2 diabetic and LC allows
me to control BG levels.

::
:: Did you consume any carbs on your 50 mile rides?

I do now, mainly because I don't like what happens if I don't.

If you're riding
:: 50 miles of hills, there's really no way to do that without taking
:: on carbs during the ride (most recommend around 200-300 calories per
:: hour, for rides over 90 minutes or so).

I don't think I consume that much. That would be like a Clif bar every hour
or so. If I'm riding 6 hours on a Saturday, I don't think I eat 6 clif bars
🙂. Maybe one before leaving home and another at the mid point. But I do
carry glucose tablets as a "just in case" measure against the bonk.

::
:::
::: OTOH, if I scale back the cycling to say 20 to 30 miles at a time,
::: none of that stuff happens, meaning: I can eat normally and don't
::: find that I go hypo and need all of those carbs.
::
:: True - on a short ride, your natural glycogen levels won't be
:: depleted even if you don't consume carbs during the ride. However,
:: for weight loss, you'll burn more calories by riding longer
:: distances.

But, after a short ride I can control my subsequent eating much better than
after a longer 60+ mile ride. Even using your cyclistat program, my polar
720i, and fitday to estimate calories, it is still hard to get intake
matched to outtake. And, I just want to eat, eat, eat. On the shorter
rides, I can just eat normally.

Hence, this year, I'm on going to start out with shorter rides and work on
increasing intensity. Then, after I've made progress with that, later on in
summer, I'll start ramping up distance. I hope to do 3 or 4 centuries this
year.

::
:: GG
::
:::
::: I'm not a swimmer....but I have am impression that swimming is a
::: hard activity...so my guess is that if you want to use it to lose
::: weight, you must do it in such a way as to be able to control your
::: diet. That may mean controlling the amount of time you spend
::: swimming while you're working on weight loss. Also, incorporate
::: other activities in too, such as weight lifting.
:::
:::
::: BlueSun wrote:
::::: Hi everyone,
:::::
::::: Ive been swimming twice a week and really enjoying it but a
::::: dietician recently told me that swimming is not good for
::::: weightloss. I did a bit of googling and found this article which
::::: is really interesting:
::::: http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/swimming.htm There
::::: are many other sites out there with similar info.
:::::
::::: Im also treadmilling a couple of days per week, but now Im
::::: thinking my swimming is more a hinderance than a help on my
::::: weightloss journey. On the other hand I guess *any* excercise is
::::: better than none, especially if Im watching my food intake.
::::: What's your opinion?
:::::
::::: Caitlin
:::::
::::: --
::::: BlueSun
::::: kgs: 115/89/70
::::: lbs: 253/195.8/154.3
::::: height: 5'8", 173cms