Swim HIIT?

[JDelage]

Jordan - do you think a swimming HIIT could work? Something like 25 yrd sprint / 100s rest x 5-7 reps? Goal for me is recomp, and I do some slow pace swimming already anyway, once a week or so.

(To the extent it matters, I'm a 43 yr old male, 5'10", ~195lbs, ~20% BF based on hydrostatic method, and currently I lift Mon & Fri, I do bodyweight / gymnastics / mobility stuff Tue & Thu, and I swim on Wed if I feel like it. My overall goal is long term health.)

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Let me get your answer to another question first, how good of a swimmer are you?

[JDelage]

I am not a competitive swimmer but I have swam all my life. I swim 2,000 yards in 55mn or so, not sure what a 25 yrds dash off the wall would be (15 to 25?) but I swim 25 yrds submerged breastroke in <35 sec. If you looked at a typical masters' group training regularly (serious swimmers), I would be solidly in the bottom 20%.

[SJB]

Oh oh, oh oh, pick me. Chance of drowning very high unless you can stand up in pool.

[ColoWayno]

A few years ago I wanted to see if I could swim, underwater, the length of an olympic pool again (used to do 1.5 laps that way). It took a few weeks but I was able to do it. I know my breathing for singing improved during this time.

I've been wondering how similar/different this is from doing regular interval training. I know I'm technically not working as hard, but it sure feels like it. I think it comes down to what it is about interval training that's so effective, creating the oxygen deficit and high heart rate or something else.

It's an interesting idea, anyway, at least to me. I could see the benefit of getting a super low impact conditioning session done this way.

Any thoughts?

[ColoWayno]

I take it back anyway, I'm sure these aren't truly Olympic sized pools I'm talking about, just regular YMCA type pools.

[Paul1]

That's exactly what I do, but higher volumes. I swim 4x a week more or less, around 2000 yards a workout. But I mostly do intervals of 50 or 100 yards. The other day I did ten 50 yd free sprints with about 20 sec rest. Brutal. The 50 were typically 32 or 33 seconds, so basically a 3:2 work to rest ratio. If I'm not going quite so hard I rest for 10 seconds.

Another type of interval I do is swimming 100 or 200 IMs. I prefer the 100 for repeats. Changing stroke after each length I think involves more overall musculature and I don't get as quick shoulder fatigue as with 100 free.

Fast intervals with brief rest are better for endurance than slow distance, provided that you keep a decent overall volume. Swimming achieves a VERY high VO2 - it's hard to measure, but I've read that many typical interval based swim practices (which has always been the standard training approach) are at around 70% of VO2max - which makes it an exceptional type of conditioning. Recomp requires that you control the food intake - that's the hard part, because combining lifting with swimming makes me fucking starving and I need more sleep than my life ever allows.

I'd add that swimming limits what I can attain by lifting, but I don't really care about that. At age 40 I'm just trying to be healthy and balanced.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

So here is my thought process:

1) Swimming, because it's done with the body flat (vs. vertical) with less gravity acting on the body including it's cardiovascular system- tends to produce a lower cardiac output (HR and stroke volume) than other modalities. If you're a very inefficient swimmer, you may flail around and indeed have a higher heart rate than your efficient, well trained (swum?) counterpart. Conversely, if you're a well trained swimmer you may be able to push intensity through the roof via increasing stroke rate, force, etc. Still, the overall heart rate and cardiovascular stress is lower than in other modalities- in general. If we're using HIIT to improve conditioning, BMR, etc. then swimming is not what I'd consider first line conditioning unless you're a swimmer or a triathlete. In short, the higher the motor skill required for a conditioning modality, the lower the intensity.

2) If someone is not very efficient at swimming, lots of muscular energy and fatigue is accumulated by just about any volume of the activity. This has implications on strength training and performance- especially when there are other modalities available.

3) The force output in swimming is much lower than dragging a heavy sled, doing a wingate, etc. which can actually increase muscle hypertrophy and strength.

4) Swimming does have applications in lower back/hip rehab and active recovery, but I think there are better options for those who are not swimmers or triathletes.

[Paul1]

VO2 when it's been measured in swimmers is very high. If you're inefficient that O2 consumption will not be used for efficient propulsion, but you can still exert yourself quite heavily in the process. Compared with a prowler the resistance is lower, but compared with sprints it is higher. Water is a vastly more resistive medium than air. Hitting max HR is just as easy from swimming as from any other full body type of exertion. As you get more conditioned to it the hr recovery quickens, which is also true for other types of conditioning.

As I see it swimming's only downside is that the buoyancy isn't as good for developing bone density. On the other hand if you're doing a heavy dryland barbell program then who cares, you already have a great stimulus from elsewhere.

In the end, with swimming I can spend 40 minutes with my HR continually between 120 during rest and 155 during sets, and not rest for more than 20 seconds straight the entire time. I can't sustain hill sprints or plyo or kettlebells for nearly that long. And I don't think it's because it's less of a workout, I think it's because it feels better and is more gratifying. It's motivating - at least to those of us who like it.

I don't think swimming conditions one very well for dryland sports, but that is a specificity problem as much as a medium problem. I mean I don't think rowing trains one for rock climbing either.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

VO2 when it's been measured in swimmers is very high. If you're inefficient that O2 consumption will not be used for efficient propulsion, but you can still exert yourself quite heavily in the process. Compared with a prowler the resistance is lower, but compared with sprints it is higher. Water is a vastly more resistive medium than air. Hitting max HR is just as easy from swimming as from any other full body type of exertion. As you get more conditioned to it the hr recovery quickens, which is also true for other types of conditioning.

I appreciate your rationale, Paul- but I think you'll agree with my points when presented the following information.
1) VO2 max is modality specific. In fact, if you take a swimmer and test them on a treadmill they will test much lower than you'd predict and MUCH lower than their ground based endurance "control". Not only does vo2 max values of the competitors in a sport fail to indicate the intensity, efficacy, or overall competitive level of the athlete - it's lower in swimmers. There are also zero swimmers with a vo2 max > 80, which puts them out of the top 20 recorded vo2 maxes for either sex. Cyclists and cross country skiers currently hold down the fort there.

You are correct that the resistance is "higher" for swimming, but the force production is lower because the velocity of movement AND having to deal with gravity. Considering during a sprint the relevant ground reactive forces and the contraction velocity and then you'll arrive at sprinting being >>>>>>>> swimming from a force production standpoint.

Finally, classical ex phys studies show swimming and arm ergs to have 10-20 bpm lower on HR than other modalities at any given work output- so no, it's not the same with respect to "exertion", it presents a larger risk- relatively- to competing with strength adaptations, and it's not as effective for the generating the stress-adaptation cycle I personally think we should be seeking if we're going to condition at all.

As I see it swimming's only downside is that the buoyancy isn't as good for developing bone density. On the other hand if you're doing a heavy dryland barbell program then who cares, you already have a great stimulus from elsewhere.

Agreed.

In the end, with swimming I can spend 40 minutes with my HR continually between 120 during rest and 155 during sets, and not rest for more than 20 seconds straight the entire time. I can't sustain hill sprints or plyo or kettlebells for nearly that long. And I don't think it's because it's less of a workout, I think it's because it feels better and is more gratifying. It's motivating - at least to those of us who like it.

Paul....dude. The fact that you cannot sustain plyo/kb's/rower/prowler/car pushes that long is because they require more force production, more cardiac output, etc. and rely more heavily on anaerobic bioenergetic systems. Luckily, training those systems regularly also develops the aerobic pathway at least as good as aerobic training- though admittedly efficiency in movement is compromised without aerobic training.