Thanks,
Kevin
Check your heart rate. For me, it's pretty low swimming. It's very
high running, enough such that per measure of time, it's twice the
calorie count. But then again, I'm doing long distance open water
swimming - I'm sure the swim groups at the pool can give you a workout
that will elevate that pulse. However, you may still not catch up to
running - legs muscles require more O2 than the arm muscles.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
Diego
"Jason O'Rourke" <j...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:am3j1i$1rld$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
>Swimming the heart rate is lower than running just because during a swimming
>your body is horizontal. For the same reason the swimming Anaerobic Thresold
>is lower than running AT.
>So if one runs and swims at the same percentage of his AT he will burn the
>same calories
>ex: Swimming AT 160 - Running AT 180
>Swimm 1h @ 112HR = Run 1h @126 (70%AT)
>So the problem is to find out your AT for each sport.
>
>Diego
This doesn't seem logical to me. How can you burn equal
calories when using different muscle groups and doing different
amounts of work? what is the direct relationship between HR and
caloric burn?
I can do considerably larger amount of work at a much lower HR
using my legs than my arms. I would think that work completed is a
closer representation of caloric burn than HR. I.E. a person can squat
100 lbs with little effort and low HR. This 100 lb squat represents X
work and or X caloric burn. If this same person curls 50 lbs more than
likely the percieved effort would be greater HR would be greater but a
smaller amount of work would have been done and less calories burnt.
I'm not a doctor so I'm not excatly sure of what physiological
effects causes HR to raise and lower however I'm sure many low caloric
burning functions can cause HR to raise. I.E. Being Frightened.
~Matt
<MJuric> wrote in message news:3d85fc19....@news.choiceone.net...
I think it would be the rare individual that burns more calories swimming
than running. I'm definitely better trained in running and I burn calories
at *twice* the rate I do when in the water.
>In an aerobic work the amount of calories burned is related to the amount of
>oxigen burned in the aerobic chimical reaction that occours in the muscles
>So to know how many calories are burned in an exercise it is possible to
>look the amount of the blood that reach the muscles.
This discussion is very intriguing to me. Do you have any
sights, books, info etc that may go more into detail on the subject.
I'm still quite concerned about relating HR to calories or
oxygen used. Seems to me that the body would recognize a lack of
oxygen in the smaller muscles of the back and arms during swimming and
thus increase HR. The only oxygen that would be used is the oxygen
sent to the oxygen deprived muscles. The rest of the system would then
have over oxygenated blood. Or does the system somehow constrict flow
of blood to the rest of the body in direct relationship to needed
oxygen?
~Matt
Diego
<MJuric> wrote in message news:3d88b89b...@news.choiceone.net...
How do you know that?
Diego
Heart rate monitor, and common sense.
I can run 2 hours straight with an average HR of 176. For a shorter race,
it's a bit higher. But when I swim, it's closer to 110-120. No need to
lift the body weight.
For nearly all athletes, their AT for running is higher than for swimming.
Aside from being horizonal instead of vertical, the upper body muscles are
smaller and require less energy than the massive ones of the leg. And the
nature of water means that for most it doesn't make sense to go as fast
as possible, unlike for running.
>Sorry but all the book I have are in Italian...
>
>Diego
Could you translate the title(s) maybe I can find an English
translated version.
~Matt
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/energyexp.htm
"KB" <kbe...@hfx.eastlink.ca.nospam> wrote in message news:<336h9.75126$C8.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
Diego
<MJuric> wrote in message news:3d8a0700...@news.choiceone.net...