I have lost about 15 pounds so far on my weight loss quest and have been doing my HIIT running for 2 months. I have a few more pounds to lose until the ab muscles really come out. I have been playing sports my whole life and now with this cardio that I do every couple days makes me realize that I have been running my ass of for the last 17 years of my life and I am starting to get sick of it. I know that people have said that they have lost great weight by doing swimming instead of running as their cardio. I dont quite understand how this is possible. I mean I dont feel like swimming for 30 minutes is even close to running for 30 minutes as heart rate and amount of calories are burned. Can some1 give me an opinon on the pros and cons of switching from running to swimming. Will I be able to shed these last 5-10 pounds by doing so. Thanks.

Try it and see - I'd think swimming would give more of your body a workout (as Derwyddon's already pointed out) and the cross training with a new activity will help you burn a few more calories.

Swimming is among the best methods to develop cardio fitness. However, there is still some debate out there as to whether it is the best option - i.e the most ' opitmal ' way - for losing fat.

For example, there seems to be the view among some people that swimmers tend to carry more fat than, lets' say, runners or cyclists. And, even though you get an added benefit of building some muscle during swimming, it doesn't seem to translate to the added fat loss you might expect. For example, a swimmers muscles are just as lean and and fit as a runner's - but, there is a theory that a swimmer's body adapts to a cold liquid environment by carrying needed fat under the skin. The rationale being, this tendency to retain fat is simply nothing more than a good example of your body's ability to ' adapt ' to it's surroundings - in this case, water. So while you'll get ' incredibly fit ' with swimming ( i.e steady state or HIIT swimming) .....you probably won't lose as much fat by swimming compared to some other cardio options...but then again, you won't add fat either. And this is why some think swimming is not the best - ' opitmal ' - cardio option for losing fat.

By the way, apart from the whole " retain fat due to cold water " view, one of the other reasons why land-based ( and weight bearing ) exercises like running are recommended for fat loss over swimming is the issue of intensity. You touched on it when you said " I mean I dont feel like swimming for 30 minutes is even close to running for 30 minutes as heart rate and amount of calories are burned " . This might be because you would have to do substantially higher intensity level of swimming to achieve the same caloric burn as doing a less intense and more comfortable pace of running.

Wrangell, I got a report coming out in a couple of weeks that might just change your mind on that .

In short though, no study has shown that swimming in normal pools holds fat.

thanks for the replies guys...so are you thinking this can help with the last 5-10 pounds or there is no point in trying it

Look forward to hearing the details of your report.

My comments on swimming are just based on ' commentary ' ( i.e articles, trainers, coaches etc. ) I've read over the years - I didn't mean to suggest it was based on scientific literature based on studies. Sorry if it came across otherwise. And this is why I said " there is still some debate out there " and " there seems to be the view among some people ". However, this link does shed a bit more light on the whole swimmer / fat loss debate...or as they call it, the ' conundrum '......

.

Sportscience Compeat: Swimmers: Body fat mystery!


...as they say, more research is needed.

Again, the basics of thermodynamics dictate how fat is lost, so obviously using swimming for caloric expenditures during and after exercise can be a means of achieving that - you can lose fat by means of swimming. As I said before, the question is more a question of whether swimming is " optimal " when choosing between swimming and some other land-based cardio options. That said, all other things being equal, I still find ' weight bearing exercises ' that primarily recruit the larger muscles like the legs and buttock ( like running and eliptical trainers etc. ) - to be the " optimal " means of fat loss via cardio. Rowing is another good execise that recruits the larger muscles like the legs and buttock as a fat burner, but not as much weight bearing. And, I also think there might be some merit to the metabolic impact of the intensity level threshold ' average ' swimmers can reach versus those who engage in weight bearing exercises.

In the end however, the ' best cardio ' - be it for overall fitness or fat loss - is simply the cardio you enjoy doing most .

wrangell thanks a lot man what would you say about cardio boxing and kick boxing anything like that. I'm sorry if i'm an annoyance just how i previously stated I just cant do the running any more lol.

cardio is cardio, case closed

In terms of caloric expenditure alone, I'd think cardio boxing and kick boxing would be ' excellent ' workouts IMO.

It seems to me both are good full body workouts and generally speaking - pretty intense workous as well. While it is difficult to compare them because they may place more reliance on different energy systems, my gut feel would be that 60 minutes of an ' average ' cardio boxing and kick boxing would burn more calories than 60 minutes of an ' average ' swim in the pool. Again, it's just a guess on my part.

Remember, when it comes to fat loss, it's all boils down to calories - caloric expenditure - i.e " burning " calories. When you exercise , you burn calories 2 ways. First , you burn calories doing the actual exercise itself. Second, your body burns an elevated amount of calories after exercise as well.

So, forgetting about the calories you burn after exercise for a moment, if you only wanted to know which is the best exercise only over 60 minutes for fat loss , you'd choose the exercise that burns the most calories in those 60 minutes. So, if a 60 minute kick boxing class burns 700 calories and a 60 minute jog burns 500 calories and a 60 minute row burns 500 calories - kick boxing wins out as your best choice for fat loss because it burns the most calories overall during the 60 minutes of exercise itself.

Also, getting back to the issue about the calories you burn after exercise. Some forms of cardio protocols like High Intensity Interval Training ( HIIT ) - and this could come in the form of running, biking, swimming, rowing, eliptical trainer training etc. etc. - not only burn a whack of calories for each minute you do the actually exercise session itself, but they contribute to a very high level of caloric expenditure after you exercise compared to some less intense forms of exercise protocols ( i.e steady state ) . So while a steady run of 30 minutes might burn 350 calories and 30 minutes of HIIT ( i.e running, biking etc. ) might also burn 350 calories, you may get more calories being burned after the HIIT session than after a steady run session. This is one of the reasons why HIIT is so popular as a fat loss tool.

You know, one thing everyone here, including yourself, has ignored here is the FUN factor of how you want to lose these last few pounds. I mean, if you're in a hurry to get rid of them, I can understand about you asking what's the best/quickest way to lose them, but if you're not in a hurry and you're sick of running and don't really want to swim, why not just do something that you'll like, or at least DISLIKE LESS, that will help you shed this little bit of weight? If you're interested in boxing/kickboxing, yeah, do that. I don't know if it will help you lose the weight as fast as running or something else, but if it does the job slower but makes you happier, then that would be the best thing to do. That's a reason a lot of people don't work out: it's boring and makes them unhappy! Why not do something fun? Kill two birds with one stone.

You've seen those boxers/kickboxers. They are fit and you can see how hard they breathe. Those fighting sports that go in rounds like that are extremely tiring and also require a lot of strength. You will need to train some cardio, like more running (!), if that's part of the class or what the instructor tells you, but when you're sparring or whatever you will be be doing things that will keep your heart rate up. Heck, even just hitting the punching bag can keep your heart rate up.

So to answer your question, if these other things are more appealing to you and they will, however long it takes, help you lose that last bit of weight, do it, definitely. Not only will you have more fun and actually look forward to working out, you'll be more inclined to keep your routine up, which is half the battle of getting in shape.

Actually, the fun factor wasn't ignored IMO - that's why ( in my earlier post ) I said....

" In the end however, the ' best cardio ' - be it for overall fitness or fat loss - is simply the cardio you enjoy doing most . "

wow. that thing about your body keeping on fat because of cold water is really stupid. whats the difference from being in "cold" 75 degree water than being in "cold" 75 degree weather? its dumb...and anyway you dont spend that much time in a pool...

IMO, swimming is a much better workout. by far. i dont know aobut you but, i can run a mile in around 8 minutes and feel pretty tired. but after swimming (even just doggy paddling!) for 8 minutes, i would feel much more tired. i thought doggy paddling was easy until i tried doing 5 laps back and forth. its a very freakin good workout for me. dont even get me started on breaststrokes...

and running is boring IMO

Well done.

An 8 min mile isn't bad - that's about a pace of 7 1/2+/- miles an hour if memory serves. I think most young people your age ( who are in pretty good shape ) can do that 8 min mile pace for 20-30 minutes without too much trouble. For example, I've got 4 kids and I can still do that pace..and if an old guy like me can do it...well, you get the idea.

On the question of which is the ' better ' workout ' - I suppose it depends on what the question means by ' better '. However you might define the question, the answer hinges to lare extent on how to best compare 30 minutes of swimming to running. If ' better ' is defined in terms of fat loss, it then comes down to an issue of calories. So ' better ' might be defined as which one burns more calories in thirty minutes - swimming or running. But then the problem with that is, it's tough to compare swimming to running unless you've controlled for the intensity level of both...ie in terms of heart rate. So, you might try to compare swimming for 30 minutes at 80 % MHR and running at 80 % MHR ( more of a closer apples to apples comparison ) and try and figure out which one burned more calories for a similar level of intensity.

If the definition of ' better ' is in terms of the number of muscles used, swimming is a full body workout, so swimming would have an edge there. And, if the definition of ' better ' is in terms of cardio fitness ? You'd think that a steady 80% MHR over thirty minutes would generally speaking yield about the same cardio benefits regardless of the type - swimming or running or rfowing.

But as I said before, swimming will greatly improve muscle tone and endurance, swimming will greatly improve cardio fitness and swimming will help you lose fat. Even if the question is whether swimming is the " optimal " choice for fat loss - it might be a moot point.

Like I said,the " best cardio " for fat loss is the cardio you'll actually do.

For example , for me - swimming " is boring ".

id have to agree with all your posts in this thread

Swimming's a LOT more of a workout to me. I can run 30 minutes and be pretty winded...but swimming for 30 minutes is damn near impossible for me. The resistance of the water plus using a great larger number of muscles would seem to be a plus there. You can't get in the pool and swim around for a while...you need to do laps constantly, and don't stop but every 10 minutes for maybe one minute. Keep that heart rate up.