Swimming vs Running
Anna Hibner
College Composition II
Professor Hummel
WHICH IS A BETTER WORKOUT: SWIMMING OR RUNNING?
Every exercise has both its fan-boys and not so fan-boys, swimming and running being no exception. Most of the disagreements over running and swimming revolve around how the benefits of these exercises are measured. Some choose to measure in terms of calorie burn while others measure by the amount of time it takes to reach a specific goal. I have come to the conclusion that whether or not swimming is better than running, or vice versa, it really depends on how you measure the results. Swimming takes more physical effort than running to cover the same amount of distance. In other words, the average person will work harder to swim two miles than he would to run the same distance. With this being said, the more physical effort put into the workout, the more productive the exercise is. As a swimmer, like myself, I have learned that time is a more important measurement than distance; for example, twenty minutes of swimming and twenty minutes of steady running produce cardio results that are nearly identical. While it is true that you cover more distance in twenty minutes of running, you don’t get a better cardio benefit “per mile” than you do from swimming the same amount of time. What matters is the fact that you are spending twenty minutes in an intense cardio workout, regardless of which exercise you choose.
Swimming provides more resistance and works almost every muscle in the body. At the same time, the average swimmer does not continually knock off his laps without stopping for twenty straight minutes. Most of the time, people pace themselves in such a way that includes gliding or floating every few minutes before starting to swim hard again. At the end of every stroke there is a period of very low resistance, even if it is minimal. On the other side, running provides a consistent amount of resistant throughout the exercise. So while the
College Composition II
Professor Hummel
WHICH IS A BETTER WORKOUT: SWIMMING OR RUNNING?
Every exercise has both its fan-boys and not so fan-boys, swimming and running being no exception. Most of the disagreements over running and swimming revolve around how the benefits of these exercises are measured. Some choose to measure in terms of calorie burn while others measure by the amount of time it takes to reach a specific goal. I have come to the conclusion that whether or not swimming is better than running, or vice versa, it really depends on how you measure the results. Swimming takes more physical effort than running to cover the same amount of distance. In other words, the average person will work harder to swim two miles than he would to run the same distance. With this being said, the more physical effort put into the workout, the more productive the exercise is. As a swimmer, like myself, I have learned that time is a more important measurement than distance; for example, twenty minutes of swimming and twenty minutes of steady running produce cardio results that are nearly identical. While it is true that you cover more distance in twenty minutes of running, you don’t get a better cardio benefit “per mile” than you do from swimming the same amount of time. What matters is the fact that you are spending twenty minutes in an intense cardio workout, regardless of which exercise you choose.
Swimming provides more resistance and works almost every muscle in the body. At the same time, the average swimmer does not continually knock off his laps without stopping for twenty straight minutes. Most of the time, people pace themselves in such a way that includes gliding or floating every few minutes before starting to swim hard again. At the end of every stroke there is a period of very low resistance, even if it is minimal. On the other side, running provides a consistent amount of resistant throughout the exercise. So while the