Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
Author |
Message |
Brendan McCa #1 / 17
|
 Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
Hi, I saw an Oprah lose weight special (or something) and she had her trainer evaluate how good a number of different exercises were for losing weight. Anyway, of the ten exercises, swimming came in at number ten because "the water keeps your body cool and therefore it doesn't burn as much fat". This seemed like a strange statement to make as I thought the amount of fat you would burn would be proportional to the amount of energy you used, not your body temperature. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone could confirm or debunk this statement. Cheers, Brendan. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.S. Dept., James Cook University, Phone: (077) 814402. Townsville, QLD, 4811. Australia. There's only one catch - Catch 22.
|
Sun, 09 Feb 1997 12:26:01 GMT |
|
 |
Mark J. Bob #2 / 17
|
 Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
Quote:
>Hi, >I saw an Oprah lose weight special (or something) and she had her >trainer evaluate how good a number of different exercises were for >losing weight. Anyway, of the ten exercises, swimming came in at number >ten because "the water keeps your body cool and therefore it doesn't >burn as much fat". This seemed like a strange statement to make as I >thought the amount of fat you would burn would be proportional to the >amount of energy you used, not your body temperature. Anyway, I was >wondering if anyone could confirm or debunk this statement.
Hmm....you know, I heard Covert Bailey say the same thing on "Fit or Fat for the '90s" which is the PBS special they've been airing duing the summer pledge drive. I tended to think along the same lines that you are, and was also puzzled by this explanation. Also, the other point he made was that swimming was more of an arm exercise than a lower body exercise, and therefore was less likely to burn a lot of fat. Now, that second part, I can understand. But the business about body temperature didn't make sense to me. -Mark -- Mark J. Bobak Truck Operations Ford Motor Company
|
Sun, 09 Feb 1997 23:07:49 GMT |
|
 |
Wayne Turn #3 / 17
|
 Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
: Hi, : I saw an Oprah lose weight special (or something) and she had her : trainer evaluate how good a number of different exercises were for : losing weight. Anyway, of the ten exercises, swimming came in at number : ten because "the water keeps your body cool and therefore it doesn't : burn as much fat". This seemed like a strange statement to make as I : thought the amount of fat you would burn would be proportional to the : amount of energy you used, not your body temperature. Anyway, I was : wondering if anyone could confirm or debunk this statement. Sounds weird to me too, as a good deal of energy is expended to keep the body warm. One would think this increased need for warming while in cold water would be a benefit. But what the hell do I know, *she's* the millionare... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
arrived here in 1648 in the hope of finding greater restrictions than were permissible under English law at that time." - Garrison Keillor ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Mon, 10 Feb 1997 04:00:03 GMT |
|
 |
Casey Scal #4 / 17
|
 Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
|> Hi, |> |> I saw an Oprah lose weight special (or something) and she had her |> trainer evaluate how good a number of different exercises were for |> losing weight. Anyway, of the ten exercises, swimming came in at number |> ten because "the water keeps your body cool and therefore it doesn't |> burn as much fat". This seemed like a strange statement to make as I |> thought the amount of fat you would burn would be proportional to the |> amount of energy you used, not your body temperature. Anyway, I was |> wondering if anyone could confirm or debunk this statement. |> |> Well of course. Isn't it like frying bacon? The more heat you apply, the more fat melts away to grease in the bottom of the pan. If they warm up the pool too much, people will start to melt and leave a grease trail behind. Just joking. The real reason why swimming is considered to burn less calories is that it is done in a horizantal position. Therefore the heart doesn't have to work as hard to pump {*filter*} to the arms which are doing a fair amount of work. This is the old theory of aerobics where the feeling was that to exercise aerobically, you need to raise the heart rate. Thus the flailing arms. The new theory is that you want to exercise the muscles so that they will run out of stored energy and require energy at a rate just fast enough to burn your stored fat (not too fast). Burning stored fat requires oxygen (thus aerobic). The larger the muscle you work aerobically, the more fat your body uses, the more oxygen required. Because the range of motion of the legs in swimming is fairly small (compared to low impact aerobics, or walking) the amount of fat burned would be smaller. The legs contain the largest muscles in our bodies. The arms work very hard in swimming with a very large range of motion. However, because the arms have relatively small muscles, less fat is burned. Casey
|
Tue, 11 Feb 1997 02:32:05 GMT |
|
 |
Mary Lacro #5 / 17
|
 Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
Quote:
>|> Hi, >|> >|> I saw an Oprah lose weight special (or something) and she had her >|> trainer evaluate how good a number of different exercises were for >|> losing weight. Anyway, of the ten exercises, swimming came in at number >|> ten because "the water keeps your body cool and therefore it doesn't >|> burn as much fat". This seemed like a strange statement to make as I >|> thought the amount of fat you would burn would be proportional to the >|> amount of energy you used, not your body temperature. Anyway, I was >|> wondering if anyone could confirm or debunk this statement. >The real reason why swimming is considered to burn less calories is that it is >done in a horizantal position. Therefore the heart doesn't have to work as hard >to pump {*filter*} to the arms which are doing a fair amount of work. >This is the old theory of aerobics where the feeling was that to exercise >aerobically, you need to raise the heart rate. Thus the flailing arms. >The new theory is that you want to exercise the muscles so that they will >run out of stored energy and require energy at a rate just fast >enough to burn your stored >fat (not too fast). Burning stored fat requires oxygen (thus aerobic). >The larger the muscle you work aerobically, the more fat your body uses, the >more oxygen required. Because the range of motion of the legs in swimming >is fairly small (compared to low impact aerobics, or walking) the amount >of fat burned would be smaller. >The legs contain the largest muscles in our bodies. The arms work >very hard in swimming with a very large range of motion. However, because the >arms have relatively small muscles, less fat is burned.
When I injured my knee, I was advised to try "running" in deep water, using a special vest to keep my body upright, as a low-impact exercise. I never took it up, because the vest was pricey and it sounded silly, but now I'm wondering if I should have given it a try. Even though this workout keeps your body in cool water, you should expect not just aerobic benefits but a good fat-burning workout because your large leg muscles are doing a lot of work. Right? Regards, Mary.
|
Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:31:57 GMT |
|
 |
alex tayl #6 / 17
|
 Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
Quote:
>|> Hi, >|> >|> I saw an Oprah lose weight special (or something) and she had her >|> trainer evaluate how good a number of different exercises were for (deleted) >The larger the muscle you work aerobically, the more fat your body uses, the more >oxygen required. Because the range of motion of the legs in swimming is fairly >small (compared to low impact aerobics, or walking) the amount of fat burned would >be smaller. The legs contain the largest muscles in our bodies. The arms work >very hard in swimming with a very large range of motion. However, because the >arms have relatively small muscles, less fat is burned.
The main thing in any excersize is to elevate your metabolic rate. The metabolic rate remains slightly elevated following exercise for quite some time. Provided a swimmer works hard enough this excersize is as good as any other for burning calories and much easier on certain joints than say, running. Because swimming also works the muscles of the shoulders, back and chest, the muscle mass being excersized is in fact quite large. There are also swimming excersizes that work 100% legs. I did about four months of work on fat metabolism in Calgary about a year ago and it seems to me that both excersize and diet are required for substantial (healthy) weight loss. I seem to recall that this had to do with the regulation of LPL expression in response to excersize and dieting, among other things.
|
Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:42:44 GMT |
|
 |
Dick Ki #7 / 17
|
 Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
|> Hi, |> |> I saw an Oprah lose weight special (or something) and she had her |> trainer evaluate how good a number of different exercises were for |> losing weight. Anyway, of the ten exercises, swimming came in at number |> ten because "the water keeps your body cool and therefore it doesn't |> burn as much fat". This seemed like a strange statement to make as I |> thought the amount of fat you would burn would be proportional to the |> amount of energy you used, not your body temperature. Anyway, I was |> wondering if anyone could confirm or debunk this statement. |> I have an UNinformed hypothesis on this one. Consider the vast spectrum of exercises out there. Remember also that we are talking about people who need to lose weight, so they are not compulsive exercisers and in fact they are strangers to the land of vigorous physical activity. If i decide to run and i decide to "dog it" i slow down and my gait soon changes and before my energy output level declines too much it becomes impossible for me to convince myself that i am exercising vigorously. Besides, i probably choose my workout based on distance rather than time so if i run slower at least i run longer. Also, if i run 10% slower the mechanics are probably that i use maybe 15% less power; some of the power goes to air resistance but much of it goes to balance, etc. So my modest workout is almost as good as the supercharged one my doctor or researcher thinks i am doing, and he records "running is an excellent way of losing weight". If i decide to swim and i decide to "dog it" i will. Since swimming is less familiar than running i won't notice as easily that my stroke isn't what it could be until i'm essentially dead in the water. Furthermore, even a modest slowdows has a severe effect. Essentially all the power a swimmer expends is devoted to fluid resistance which is proportional to the _cube_ of the speed, so so a 10% slowdown corresponds to a 27% reduction in power output, and a 20% slowdown, relatively easy to drift into if you're not used to pushing yourself, drops your power output to about half of its previous value. I understand as well that another component of swimming's bad reputation is that weight loss is initially swift but tapers off rapidly. Consider the possibility that most people who are not used to vigorous physical activity do not swim with good, clean form. Therefore, they burn a lot of energy but don't really get very far, and they calibrate their expectations as to how many laps they must swim for a good, hard, huffing-and-puffing workout based on the distance they can cover in a given amount of time, in poor form, only with tremendous effort. These people are not fit but they're not [usually] stupid or clumsy. Like any other activity that they practice several times per week for a half hour at a time, they become good at it. Only in this case "good" is bad because they complete their planned number of laps without actually having burned a lot of fat. -dk
|
Wed, 12 Feb 1997 07:57:38 GMT |
|
 |
Jennifer Robl #8 / 17
|
 Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
Quote:
>When I injured my knee, I was advised to try "running" in deep water, >using a special vest to keep my body upright, as a low-impact exercise. >I never took it up, because the vest was pricey and it sounded silly, >but now I'm wondering if I should have given it a try. >Even though this workout keeps your body in cool water, you >should expect not just aerobic benefits but a good fat-burning workout >because your large leg muscles are doing a lot of work. Right?
This and the other post about not using your legs in swimming and that being the reason that you don't get as much benefit aerobically got me to thinking. I have always felt that swimming is an excellent aerobic exercise for fat burning, conditioning, etc, etc, This is because for me it really was. One summer when I chipped some bones, I started swimming for exercise. I have never, ever had such success with any other program. Based on the look in the mirror bodyfat % test, I was the leanest that I had ever been or been since. I wasn't eating low fat either. I went from swimming to a water polo class that was filled with "real" swimmers. It was coed. We did a lot of endurance swimming. At first when we did laps, I was the slowest at every stroke except when we kicked only. When we kicked only, I was the fastest. (By the end of the class I was 3rd slowest - I counted that as a major improvement). My point is that when I swim, I use my lower body. That is where my strength is. When the "real" swimmers in the class swam, they used their upper bodies. My method of swimming will never win a race, but as far as burning fat is concerned, my method will probably work better for most people. If you emphasize the lower body, you will utilize the larger muscles and you won't fatigue the littler muscles in your arms as fast. --
If you were wondering, I am not the official voice of Sandia National Laboratory, the US Department of Energy, the US Government, my parents, my siblings, my friends, my cousins, or my pets.
|
Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:30:59 GMT |
|
 |
George Cla #9 / 17
|
 Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
Your topic is a frequent source of flames at misc.fitness, and I believe it is also addressed in the FAQ for the swimming newsgroup. If losing body fat is your motive for exercise, then you are likely to see better results from land exercise than water exercise. The body temperatures of swimmers actually do get quite elevated, and it was recently shown that a swimmer can lose a pound of sweat in the water, just like a person will with intense land exercise. However, when the swimmer gets out of the water, their wet body begins to shiver, and body temperature rapidly returns to normal. They lose the benefit of having an elevated body temperature for four hours immediately thereafter, which is observed in persons engaged in land exercise, so swimmers are without an elevated metabolism, which is helpful for losing body fat. I am unable to cite data. However, the sports-medicine physician who I listen to on the radio, who is also the author of a book or two on weight loss, makes the same assertion... and he does cite data. -- George B. Clark
|
Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:38:13 GMT |
|
 |
Daniel Ansa #10 / 17
|
 Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
Quote:
[snip] >I have always felt that swimming is an excellent aerobic exercise for >fat burning, conditioning, etc, etc, This is because for me it really >was. One summer when I chipped some bones, I started swimming for >exercise. I have never, ever had such success with any other program. >Based on the look in the mirror bodyfat % test, I was the leanest that I >had ever been or been since. I wasn't eating low fat either. [snip] >My point is that when I swim, I use my lower body. That is where my >strength is. When the "real" swimmers in the class swam, they used >their upper bodies. My method of swimming will never win a race, but as >far as burning fat is concerned, my method will probably work better for >most people. If you emphasize the lower body, you will utilize the >larger muscles and you won't fatigue the littler muscles in your arms as >fast. >--
> If you were wondering, I am not the official voice of Sandia National > Laboratory, the US Department of Energy, the US Government, my parents, > my siblings, my friends, my cousins, or my pets.
Unless you're weight training as well, I don't think you or any woman should rely on swimming as the main form of exercise. It doesn't provide much stress to the bones, and this could be one major reason for bone loss, possibly leading to osteoporosis. Daniel
|
Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:07:36 GMT |
|
 |
Chris Parkins #11 / 17
|
 Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
Quote:
>|> Hi, >|> >|> I saw an Oprah lose weight special (or something) and she had her >|> trainer evaluate how good a number of different exercises were for >|> losing weight. Anyway, of the ten exercises, swimming came in at number >|> ten because "the water keeps your body cool and therefore it doesn't >|> burn as much fat". This seemed like a strange statement to make as I >|> thought the amount of fat you would burn would be proportional to the >|> amount of energy you used, not your body temperature. Anyway, I was >|> wondering if anyone could confirm or debunk this statement. >|>
As according to the book Fit or Fat in the 90's, Covert Bailey, he states, (this is from memory), Swimming is the worst way to lose wieght. Running is the fastest path but ruins your joints. Bicycling is there- fore the best as it is more aerobic in nature, its more fun, more scenic and more of an overall workout. As I remember it, to get the equivalent workout of a 45 min jog: Bicycling: 1.00 hours Swimming: 2.00 hours! What he says you have to look at is which muscle groups you are exercising. Leg lifts only exercise a muscle that is as big as your pinky finger. Not real good. Bicycling comes real close to exercising lots of muscle groups especially if you cycle in some hills. Its non abusive to your body and allows you to learn proper breathing tech- niques much faster than with running. It also increases your sense of balance. He also reminds us that we need sugars in order to burn our fats properly. His book and hypothesis towards metabolism are quite good I strongly suggest that if you are overwieght and want to deal with your weight and are fed up with diets and plans that dont work to get his book. He is also on PBS channels in your area. Watch for them as he also is quite entertaining to see. Good luck. CP
|
Sat, 15 Feb 1997 03:03:39 GMT |
|
 |
David Considi #12 / 17
|
 Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
Quote: (Chris Parkinson) writes:
deletions... Quote: >As according to the book Fit or Fat in the 90's, Covert Bailey, he >states, (this is from memory), Swimming is the worst way to lose wieght. >Running is the fastest path but ruins your joints. Bicycling is there- >fore the best as it is more aerobic in nature, its more fun, more >scenic and more of an overall workout. >As I remember it, to get the equivalent workout of a 45 min jog: > Bicycling: 1.00 hours > Swimming: 2.00 hours! >What he says you have to look at is which muscle groups you are >exercising. Leg lifts only exercise a muscle that is as big as your >pinky finger. Not real good. Bicycling comes real close to exercising >lots of muscle groups especially if you cycle in some hills. Its non >abusive to your body and allows you to learn proper breathing tech- >niques much faster than with running. It also increases your sense of >balance. He also reminds us that we need sugars in order to burn our >fats properly.
more deletions... Hmm... you wouldn't happen to be a big cycling fan now, would you? :-) I have to quibble about saying that a 45 min jog = 1 hr bike = 1 hr swim. Don't you think that this would depend tremendously on the effort level for each exercise, and also from person to person? Bicycling at 19 mph average is going to be much more difficult than jogging at 6 mph, for instance. In addition, the ability to get a good workout from different exersizes will depend on how much skill a person has in doing that particular exercise. A person who has been swimming competitively for years, for instance, would have an efficient stroke and would have well-developed arm, shoulder, chest, and back muscles, all of which are important in swimming. I would think they could get a lot better workout swimming than they could doing anything else. I think that there is a huge difference between what should be recommended to sedentary people embarking on a remedial fitness program, and what holds for people who are very fit already. If you don't know how to swim, it is going to take a very long time for you to learn how to do it efficiently and develop the muscles it uses to the point where you can get a great workout from it. So for people whose only goal was to lose weight, walking or jogging would work much better. I also think that the musculature and skill needed to get a great workout riding a bike would take a while to develop, too. In these cases Covert Bailey's comments are excellent. However, I don't think what Bailey says can be used to select a superior form of aerobic activity - that would be much too simple. David Considine -- David B. Considine Voice: (301) 286-4299 Code 916, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Fax: (301) 286-1754
|
Sat, 15 Feb 1997 05:36:24 GMT |
|
 |
Chris Parkins #13 / 17
|
 Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
Quote:
>(Chris Parkinson) writes: >deletions... >>As according to the book Fit or Fat in the 90's, Covert Bailey, he >>states, (this is from memory), Swimming is the worst way to lose wieght. >>Running is the fastest path but ruins your joints. Bicycling is there- >>fore the best as it is more aerobic in nature, its more fun, more >>scenic and more of an overall workout. >>As I remember it, to get the equivalent workout of a 45 min jog: >> Bicycling: 1.00 hours >> Swimming: 2.00 hours! >>What he says you have to look at is which muscle groups you are >>exercising. >more deletions... and even more :) CP >Hmm... you wouldn't happen to be a big cycling fan now, would you? :-)
Yep I'm 5'10" 150 pounds and swim like a rock Quote: >I have to quibble about saying that a 45 min jog = 1 hr bike = 1 hr >swim.
well I said 2 hour swim deletions... Quote: >Bicycling at 19 mph average is going to be much more difficult than >jogging at 6 mph, for instance. In addition, the ability to get a good >workout from different exersizes will depend on how much skill a person >has in doing that particular exercise. A person who has been swimming >competitively for years, >for instance, would have an efficient stroke and would have well-developed >arm, shoulder, chest, and back muscles, all of which are important >in swimming. I would think they could get a lot better workout swimming >than they could doing anything else. >I think that there is a huge difference between what should be recommended >to sedentary people embarking on a remedial fitness program, and what >holds for people who are very fit already.
more deletions...... Quote: >So for people whose only goal was to lose weight, walking or >jogging would work much better. I also think that the musculature >and skill needed to get a great workout riding a bike would take a while >to develop, too. In these cases Covert Bailey's comments are excellent. >However, I don't think what Bailey says can be used to select a superior >form of aerobic activity - that would be much too simple. >David Considine
First off my cycling buddies and I agree that 25 mph is quite easy to maintain for an hour or so. 15 miles per hour is probably equivalent to fast walking. As far as I know, almost every one knows how to ride a bike and far fewer know how to swim. But puting that asside for now. The "cycle" that one sees in health gyms are good lower body workouts. Since the whole aspect of this article is to burn calories I still have to agree that swimming is one of the poorest ways to do it (for the average person). I do agree with you however that if you are a seasoned swimmer that you are getting an excellent workout. Incedently, Bailey has created a workout device that is low impact and works out virtually every muscle group within a 1 hour time frame. I'm not trying to sell anyone here, I just think that Bailey is right on target and his program works for the over 50 set who need his form of exercise. Regards, CP
|
Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:35:01 GMT |
|
 |
Ann McGra #14 / 17
|
 Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
On 25 Aug 94, Mary Lacroix wrote to All: [deletions] Quote: >> The larger the muscle you work aerobically, the more fat your body uses, >> the more oxygen required. Because the range of motion of the legs in >> swimming is fairly small (compared to low impact aerobics, or walking) the >> amount of fat burned would be smaller. The legs contain the largest >> muscles in our bodies. The arms work very hard in swimming with a very >> large range of motion. However, because the arms have relatively small >> muscles, less fat is burned.
ML> When I injured my knee, I was advised to try "running" in deep water, ML> using a special vest to keep my body upright, as a low-impact exercise. ML> I never took it up, because the vest was pricey and it sounded silly, ML> but now I'm wondering if I should have given it a try. Yes. You should have. Recovering from removal of chondrosarcoma from R. distal femur, I experienced accelerated recovery of range of motion in my knee using exercise in the water. I could handle leg lifts in the water before I had enough muscle return to handle leg lifts on land. You can vary how hard you push the leg in water to vary the resistance you experience. On land, you're fighting gravity, which doesn't vary to suit your need. I could also get away from those darn crutches for an hour or two!!! I didn't expect to lose weight from the exercise, but I was more toned than I'd been in 6 or 7 years. -- Ann McGrath
|
Wed, 19 Feb 1997 02:17:54 GMT |
|
 |
Parag Wakank #15 / 17
|
 Burning fat, swimming, and Oprah
|> |> As according to the book Fit or Fat in the 90's, Covert Bailey, he |> states, (this is from memory), Swimming is the worst way to lose wieght. ^^^^^^^ fat. Parag
|
Wed, 19 Feb 1997 03:15:03 GMT |
|
|
Page 1 of 2
|
[ 17 post ] |
|
Go to page:
[1]
[2] |
1. Current News About oprah winfrey. oprah winfrey,contact oprah winfrey,life story of oprah winfrey,oprah winfrey foundation,oprah winfrey website
2. oprah winfrey : Actual News. oprah winfrey,the oprah winfrey show tv show,oprah winfrey biography,timeline of oprah winfrey,biography of oprah winfrey
3. oprah winfrey : Most Recent News. oprah winfrey show,oprah winfrey childhood,contact oprah winfrey,charities of oprah winfrey,timeline of oprah winfrey
4. oprah winfrey : Most Recent News. email oprah winfrey,oprah winfrey biography,oprah winfrey foundation,the oprah winfrey show,timeline of oprah winfrey
5. oprah winfrey : Current News. oprah winfrey show,the oprah winfrey show,timeline of oprah winfrey,biography of oprah winfrey,acai and oprah winfrey
6. oprah winfrey : Leading News. oprah winfrey show,oprah winfrey geneologist,contact oprah winfrey,oprah winfrey foundation,oprah winfrey website
7. oprah winfrey. the oprah winfrey show tv show,history of oprah winfrey,charities of oprah winfrey,oprah winfrey foundation,biography of oprah winfrey
8. Latest News About oprah winfrey. oprah winfrey biography,oprah winfrey geneologist,life story of oprah winfrey,oprah winfrey foundation,acai and oprah winfrey
9. Most Recent News About oprah winfrey. email oprah winfrey,oprah winfrey childhood,oprah winfrey foundation,oprah winfrey show tickets,acai and oprah winfrey
10. oprah winfrey : Present News. email oprah winfrey,oprah winfrey childhood,history of oprah winfrey,life story of oprah winfrey,oprah winfrey website
11. Most Recent News About oprah winfrey. oprah winfrey,biography on oprah winfrey,oprah winfrey geneologist,the oprah winfrey show,oprah winfrey show tickets
12. Actual News About oprah winfrey. oprah winfrey,oprah winfrey show,oprah winfrey childhood,history of oprah winfrey,oprah winfrey foundation
|
|
|