run + swim = successful crosstrain

Quoted message said:

Finally instead of griping I got good news for myself...
Someone suggested you get a lot of cross training benefit for swimming
by running--worked a treat for me. I started running to the pool and
back for my swim, not even one week and I noticed I can swim better.
Before that, I must have been bottlenecked by low cardiovascular
fitness--I ran out of breath long before my limbs got tired when I was
swimming. With just a tiny bit of running, I can now swim harder, in
fact a bit more work and my limbs will get tired before I run out of
breath!

Actually, we probably said you don't get much cross training benefit for
swimming from running, but improving cardiovascular fitness is an
absolute good, no matter how you do it.

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

Quoted message said:

Finally instead of griping I got good news for myself...
Someone suggested you get a lot of cross training benefit for swimming
by running--worked a treat for me. I started running to the pool and
back for my swim, not even one week and I noticed I can swim better.
Before that, I must have been bottlenecked by low cardiovascular
fitness--I ran out of breath long before my limbs got tired when I was
swimming. With just a tiny bit of running, I can now swim harder, in
fact a bit more work and my limbs will get tired before I run out of
breath!

Running seems to be just plain harder than either swimming or bicycling.
I know that's a gross generalization but most swimmer and cyclists I
talk to have the same reaction as you. Personally, all I think it means
is that you could do harder swim workouts and you'd reap even more
benefit. I never swam better than when I did regular workouts with
partners who pushed me. It was just tough psychologically to push
myself that hard so I rarely did.

-S-

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:17:28 -0400, Steve Freides wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Running seems to be just plain harder than either swimming or bicycling.
I know that's a gross generalization but most swimmer and cyclists I
talk to have the same reaction as you. Personally, all I think it means
is that you could do harder swim workouts and you'd reap even more
benefit. I never swam better than when I did regular workouts with
partners who pushed me. It was just tough psychologically to push
myself that hard so I rarely did.

-S-

There's no gliding phase whilst running. No conservation of momentum.

--Mike

Michael Edey said:

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:17:28 -0400, Steve Freides wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Running seems to be just plain harder than either swimming or bicycling.
I know that's a gross generalization but most swimmer and cyclists I
talk to have the same reaction as you. Personally, all I think it means
is that you could do harder swim workouts and you'd reap even more
benefit. I never swam better than when I did regular workouts with
partners who pushed me. It was just tough psychologically to push
myself that hard so I rarely did.

-S-

There's no gliding phase whilst running. No conservation of momentum.

A lot of physicists will be surprised to hear that.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Martin Smith said:

Michael Edey said:

There's no gliding phase whilst running. No conservation of momentum.

A lot of physicists will be surprised to hear that.

ZZZZZZ...... Huh??? Did someone call me?

Oh. We kinda wink at comments like that. We understand what people
mean by them.

Of course there's conservation of momentum while running, which is why
it's easier to maintain constant speed than to do stop-and-go sprints.
But I don't think that's what the poster was referring to.

Rather, I think he's just pointing out that runners must always support
their own weight. This task requires moving the legs - a less than
perfectly efficient process - so there's always some energy expenditure.
There's no rest phase. (Not that elite swimmers or bikers rest much
either.)

Also, less efficient runners bounce up and down a lot while they run.
They get less benefit from conservation of momentum because so much of
their momentum is vertical.

Ross

(Back to sleep.....)

Ross Bogue said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Martin Smith said:

Michael Edey said:

There's no gliding phase whilst running. No conservation of momentum.

A lot of physicists will be surprised to hear that.

ZZZZZZ...... Huh??? Did someone call me?

Oh. We kinda wink at comments like that. We understand what people
mean by them.

Of course there's conservation of momentum while running, which is why
it's easier to maintain constant speed than to do stop-and-go sprints.
But I don't think that's what the poster was referring to.

Rather, I think he's just pointing out that runners must always support
their own weight. This task requires moving the legs - a less than
perfectly efficient process - so there's always some energy expenditure.
There's no rest phase. (Not that elite swimmers or bikers rest much
either.)

Also, less efficient runners bounce up and down a lot while they run.
They get less benefit from conservation of momentum because so much of
their momentum is vertical.

Ross

(Back to sleep.....)

Yes, but...

190 lb guy:

Running 6 miles per hour............... 863 calories/hour
Swimming laps, fast, vigorous effort... 863 calories/hour

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

Quoted message said:

Ross Bogue said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Martin Smith said:

Michael Edey wrote:

>There's no gliding phase whilst running. No conservation of
>momentum.

A lot of physicists will be surprised to hear that.

ZZZZZZ...... Huh??? Did someone call me?

Oh. We kinda wink at comments like that. We understand what people
mean by them.

Of course there's conservation of momentum while running, which is
why it's easier to maintain constant speed than to do stop-and-go
sprints. But I don't think that's what the poster was referring to.
Rather, I think he's just pointing out that runners must always
support their own weight. This task requires moving the legs - a
less than perfectly efficient process - so there's always some energy
expenditure. There's no rest phase. (Not that elite swimmers or
bikers rest much either.)

Also, less efficient runners bounce up and down a lot while they run.
They get less benefit from conservation of momentum because so much
of their momentum is vertical.

Ross

(Back to sleep.....)

Yes, but...

190 lb guy:

Running 6 miles per hour............... 863 calories/hour
Swimming laps, fast, vigorous effort... 863 calories/hour

I think the problem is in perceived effort. My guess is that the
perceived effort of your 190 lb. guy burning 863 calories in an hour
would be a lot higher than the perceived effort of him running 10-minute
miles. Maybe also the fact that the muscles of the lower body are
larger and therefore better calorie burners, all other things being
equal, i.e., you'd have to swim much harder because the muscles involved
aren't as large.

Not claiming any science here, just thinking out loud (always a
dangerous thing)...

-S-

Steve Freides said:

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

Quoted message said:

Ross Bogue said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Martin Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Michael Edey wrote:
>
>
>>There's no gliding phase whilst running. No conservation of
>>momentum.
>
>A lot of physicists will be surprised to hear that.

ZZZZZZ...... Huh??? Did someone call me?

Oh. We kinda wink at comments like that. We understand what people
mean by them.

Of course there's conservation of momentum while running, which is
why it's easier to maintain constant speed than to do stop-and-go
sprints. But I don't think that's what the poster was referring to.
Rather, I think he's just pointing out that runners must always
support their own weight. This task requires moving the legs - a
less than perfectly efficient process - so there's always some energy
expenditure. There's no rest phase. (Not that elite swimmers or
bikers rest much either.)

Also, less efficient runners bounce up and down a lot while they run.
They get less benefit from conservation of momentum because so much
of their momentum is vertical.

Ross

(Back to sleep.....)

Yes, but...

190 lb guy:

Running 6 miles per hour............... 863 calories/hour
Swimming laps, fast, vigorous effort... 863 calories/hour

I think the problem is in perceived effort. My guess is that the
perceived effort of your 190 lb. guy burning 863 calories in an hour
would be a lot higher than the perceived effort of him running 10-minute
miles. Maybe also the fact that the muscles of the lower body are
larger and therefore better calorie burners, all other things being
equal, i.e., you'd have to swim much harder because the muscles involved
aren't as large.

Not claiming any science here, just thinking out loud (always a
dangerous thing)...

I think it depends on whether the 190 pounder is a swimmer or a runner.
When I was in my top swimming shape, I bet I was a lot better runner
than most runners who tried swimming.