swimming is undoubtedly a better, more complete workout for the whole body. It just uses more major muscle groups. Running only really only uses a few. It is not a very complete exercise. Plus there is a cost to the impact. It also generally leads to being a bit inflexible, unless you work at it.

Southern Man



------------------
We're on a road to nowhere. Come on along.

On the other hand, swimming does not work the heart as much. The MHR in swimming is lower than the MHR for running. You can get a higher intensity workout from running than from swimming.

I'm going to disagree a little, one of the few times. I would interpret a "complete sport" as one that you could do almost exclusively and maintain health. I think weight bearing has to be an important part of that, esp. for older individuals, to avoid osteoporosis.
A couple links (con, pro) for swimming as complete sport (google on "swim osteoporosis").
http://www.spma.net/swimosteo.htm[/URL" target="_blank">
http://www.advocatehealth.com/system/info/library/articles/fitness/activities/fitswim.html[/URL" target="_blank">

In most discussions that I've seen / heard, if asked for a "best workout" or "complete sport" (no definition), cross-country skiing invariably is the response. It works the large muscles as well as the fine balance muscles, works lower and upper body, is weight-bearing, needs flexibility, doesn't have impact, gets a person in fresh air and sunlight. And as a sidelight it gets a person out of rat race (aka 3 people / lane for limited time period).

Granted xc skiing has one of the same limitations as swimming - namely, not being available consistently to many people. Even where I am, some years are not good snow years at lower elevations. Nordic walking can be done without snow and has some of same benefits. Swimming outdoors is limited to times when water isn't frozen, and indoors has limited accessibility. I'm near a pool, but many are not. Available lap swim hours are probably about 4 hrs/day Mon-Fri, 1.5 hr Sat, 1.5 hr every other Sun. And for people commuting to city, only 3 of those hours are available in a week.

In your comparison of running and swimming, you suggested that swimming is more interval oriented. That may be true for competitive swimmers, but many folks just go swim - same as they run. Think about open water swimmers, the equivalent of distance runners. Most competitive swimmers also strength train, I think.

If one looks at trail running - esp. on hilly, rooty, twisty trails - one has a lot more strength and agility work than typical road running. While running may primarily use hams and quads, most muscles of the body are used - esp. the fine balance muscles. And if you consider longer distances without aid stations, you're also carrying a pack. Many runners will do supplemental strength / agility work to maintain adequate abilities for running. While swimming is frequently suggested for rehab work, I've never heard it suggested for strength work. Most sports seem to use some supplemental resistive work - either body weight, tubing, or weights.

All these things need to be trained for. Runners get leg injuries, swimmers get shoulder injuries. Most are a function of poor technique or too much too soon.

I do agree with you about the needs of strength, flexibility, and endurance, but disagree as to where to get them. This could be an artifact of differences in relative exposures to swimming and xc skiing.

Clearly, definition of "complete" is a big question. Are you talking about "using more muscle groups" as complete? Or effect on your cardiovascular system or muscular system or whatever??? Yes, swimming would use "more" muscle groups but probably not necessarily more "major" muscle groups. Some of the biggest muscle groups are in your thighs and, while it does use them some, swimming are mainly your upper-body affair. Running, as some noted, does not do much for strength or flexibility; but it COULD if you run rugged cross country courses or trails (as AKTrail would like to hear! ;o)). In the end, I think it IS kind of silly to compare different sports which one is "better" or "more complete". i had a friend in college who insisted soccer is better sport than running. Every time he said that, I just said, "Good, I'm happy for you!" I mean, what are the reference points?

I have a different take on this.
I've been a runner for many years and was convinced that no other sport came close. Be it in terms of calorie burn or stamina build up or just the adrenalin high running provides the best ROI.
Till a recent knee injury forced me to take up an alternate sport. I took to swimming. I had paddled around in pools before. But since I was laid off running I decided to take lessons. I was surprised by the physical/ mental demands of the sport. Swimming if pursued seriously demands a great deal of breathing descipline, stamina and concentration. I find it far more intense than running. And to get to a point where you can swim without a break for 30 minutes requires a lot of work. I'm getting there.
Now that my knees have got better I alternate between swimming and running.
Running is my first love. No question. But swimming has made my exercise regimen more complete. In fact it helps my running in many ways

1. I don't run everyday. I've replaced those short runs with swimming. Therefore it gives me a lot more time to recover without any loss in fitness levels.

2. My breathing is far more efficient. I'm able to gulp more air in and exhale far more efficiently.

3. My upper body is much leaner and my abs are stronger. So no stiches or cramping while running.

To me swimming complements running. I'm sure it works the other way round. Most professional swimmers run to build stamina, I'm sure.

If you can take up swimming.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Southern Man:
This is quite an interesting friendly little debate, so I'm gonna weigh in again.

My experience is that swimming makes my muscles longer and more supple as opposed to running, which tends to shorten them. I have never actually done a flexibility test to see actual results.

Strength is a misleading term. I guess I was thinking that swimming is mostly interval oriented and has more even development of fast and slow twitch fibers. Of course that depend on how you do it. Distance running ruined me for any sort of explosive sports, but while I was still swimming I could do okay with more explosive sports.

<HR>

Southern Man:

Yes, this is an interesting debate. Flexibility is an interesting topic here because most swimmers I've known have better flexibility in terms of their shoulders--naturally probably because they swing around their arms much more vigorously than running. However, one caution I've heard about swimming as a supplementary exercise to running is that it tends to shorten your Achilles tendon (probably because of the position you have your ankles in swimming).

In terms of explosive power, yes, long distance running most likely "ruin" your explosive power. This is why it becomes crutial to do hill running to retain it. My hunch for your experience with swimming NOT ruining your explosive power is not so much that it might have developed it but it didn't deteriorate it. By stopping lond distance running and doing nothing could improve your vertical jump simply because you are NOT doing it!

There is one more issue that is being overlooked. That is issue of bone matrix alignment and strengthening as a result of the different activities. Certainly running would be superior to swimming in that aspect.

There was an interesting discussion two or three months ago in BIOMCH-L on the lower incidence of hip fractures among elderly subjects who engaged in higher bone-loading activities like running and jogging as opposed to walking and strength building.

Both types of activities are used on the space station. I do not know for sure, but I think that elastically loaded running on the TM has become part of the daily exercise regimen.

There may be an evolutionary reason to include some type of bone impact loading in the daily workout.

Ted