Radok Posted August 11, 2004 Posted August 11, 2004 I am a cross country runner, and to me it seems like running is more taxing on the cardio-vascular system's endurance, while swimming is more taxing on the muscular system. Does not compute. Any exercise that requires prolonged, arduous activity by the mucular system will require an influx of oxigen to those muscles. That in turn taxes your cardio-vascular. I see. Well, in that case, would you mind explaining why doing pushups does not make you breath as hard as jumping rope at a fast pace, even though it burns your muscles twice as bad? If you can't laugh at yourself, there's no point. No point in what, you might ask? there's just no point.Many people seem to take Karate to get a Black Belt, rather than getting a Black Belt to learn Karate.
Vito Posted August 11, 2004 Posted August 11, 2004 becase jumping rope requires more energy than pushups, genius. the same simple principle can be applied to explaining why youre more out of breath running at 10mph than 7mph. (it takes more energy.) anyway, both are great, but swimming is more difficult, and less hard on your joints, not to mention a better muscular workout (except probably for your legs.) "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." -Machiavelli
Radok Posted August 11, 2004 Posted August 11, 2004 That's my whole point, genious. That's what I was trying to illustrate to him. If you can't laugh at yourself, there's no point. No point in what, you might ask? there's just no point.Many people seem to take Karate to get a Black Belt, rather than getting a Black Belt to learn Karate.
CanuckMA Posted August 11, 2004 Posted August 11, 2004 Because push-ups involves small muscles working slowly, while running involces the largest muscle group in the body working at a fast pace. Serious swimming involves all of the muscles in the body.
manuelito Posted August 11, 2004 Posted August 11, 2004 i agree that both are good. however what are you trying to get out of it? i can run 20-30 minutes, but stick me in a pool and i am done in 10 min. i would think that swimming is better on the joints and good for the total muscule workout. running would seem to be better on the endurance aspect of training. i would do a little of both, get the best of both worlds. pain is weakness leaving the body.fear is the mind killer, i will face my fear and let it pass threw me. from the movie "dune"i know kung fu...show me. from the movie "the matrix"
Red J Posted August 11, 2004 Posted August 11, 2004 i would do a little of both, get the best of both worlds. Swimming on land or running in water? I'll say swimming on land is a better workout than running in the water. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I had to lose my mind to come to my senses.
soul fighter Posted August 14, 2004 Posted August 14, 2004 Running in water is actually a good workout For example: trying to sprint underwater is real workout During Cross COuntry season, if it rains, our coach has us go to the pool But I can't swim too well THE MASTER OF THE WORLD'S FINEST!!SOUL SONIC STYLE!!
CloudDragon Posted August 14, 2004 Posted August 14, 2004 I'd go with swimming for many of the other reasons listed above, but also because you have to have greater control over breathing which will help with lung capacity and more efficient use of oxygen in the muscle tissue. A Black Belt is just a white belt that don't know when to quit!
Radok Posted August 14, 2004 Posted August 14, 2004 Because push-ups involves small muscles working slowly, while running involces the largest muscle group in the body working at a fast pace. Serious swimming involves all of the muscles in the body. But since they're working at a fast pace, shouldn't they produce much more lactic acid, thus causing more muscular pain than squats or pushups? Following you logic, muscular endurance cannot be worked separately from cardio endurance. Guess that elliminates the need for any type of enduarance work aside from swimming, such as callisthenics. If you can't laugh at yourself, there's no point. No point in what, you might ask? there's just no point.Many people seem to take Karate to get a Black Belt, rather than getting a Black Belt to learn Karate.
CanuckMA Posted August 14, 2004 Posted August 14, 2004 Because push-ups involves small muscles working slowly, while running involces the largest muscle group in the body working at a fast pace. Serious swimming involves all of the muscles in the body. But since they're working at a fast pace, shouldn't they produce much more lactic acid, thus causing more muscular pain than squats or pushups? Following you logic, muscular endurance cannot be worked separately from cardio endurance. Guess that elliminates the need for any type of enduarance work aside from swimming, such as callisthenics. Quite correct. However, the slower you work the muscle, the less oxygen they require, thus the less stress on the cardio. You can work on your leg endurance by walking 20 miles a day. That will require considerably less cadio work than running 20 miles. Running involves the largest muscle group in the body working at peak capacity, requiring a large amount of oxynated blood, requiring the heart and lungs to work harder to supply. Push ups require a fraction of that energy. Competitive swimming involves both legs and arms muscles, and the accompanying increase in cardio, without the nasty effects of pounding the ground with every step.
Recommended Posts