water running vs. swim workout

[jdome]

I know a lot of people on this forum are loving the water running, but I was wondering how it compares to an intense swim workout. I used to be a competitive swimmer, so I've always laughed at water running and been very frustrated with it when I have tried it (probably because I'm doing it incorrectly).

So anyways, anyone have any feelings about which (hard interval swim workout or water running) is better for maintaining running fitness?

[mpd]

Many runners shy from pool running because they don't think they're doing it right or because they don't think they're getting their heart-rate high enough. If you can learn how to get your heart rate up and not cause other injuries by AWFUL form then you're better off pool running for maintaining running fitness.

I once ran a 2 second PB in the 1000 (from 2:28 to 2:26) by doing 5-6 pool runs a week and 1 or 2 running workouts. It can be a great tool if you know how to do it. I'm sure there are some youtube videos on proper form.

A few points to get your heart-rate up:
1. Very little warm-up and cool-down (in an hour pool run I usually only do a 5 min warmup and a 5 min to cool down)
2. Every time you're in the pool you should be doing intervals. There is no such thing as an "easy pool run"... you just won't get your heart rate high enough.
3. When doing intervals, take VERY little rest. A sample workout: 10x2 min hard with 20-30 sec easy. I've gone as low as 15 sec rest off of 3 minuters just to regain focus...

hope that helps a bit.

[SI]

A general rule of thumb is to divide your HR by .9 to see what it would be on land. Done properly, pool workouts are great.

[jdome]

Thanks.
One question though... should I be trying to do many quick small "strides" (moving my legs as fast as possible) or going for longer, more realistic running type strides?

[ronb]

I disagree that you need to do interval workouts every time you are pool running, in order to get benefits...
Once you get the technique right, you can do strong tempo "runs", of an hour in duration, or more, if you are really motivated. I have seen one of our top athletes go 90 minutes doing this type of fast tempo pool running, and believe me, her HR was way up...
We also used relatively easy pool runs just to flush out the legs a bit more on recovery days, or after having done the main running session(s) of the day...
We lived on a lake just outside Victoria, and often during summer months, several of our top runners would add an easy 30 minute run in the lake to their training load.
We tried to focus on a fast rhythm, with quick knee lift and lots of support from the arms...

[SI]

Apr 23, 2010 15:38:57 GMT -5 jdome said:

Thanks.
One question though... should I be trying to do many quick small "strides" (moving my legs as fast as possible) or going for longer, more realistic running type strides?

I found that short and quick(arms and legs) was the best way to get my HR up. I finished one set and I thought my heart was going to explode out of chest as bad or worse than any interval workout.

[SI]

Apr 23, 2010 15:48:05 GMT -5 ronb said:

I disagree that you need to do interval workouts every time you are pool running, in order to get benefits...
Once you get the technique right, you can do strong tempo "runs", of an hour in duration, or more, if you are really motivated. I have seen one of our top athletes go 90 minutes doing this type of fast tempo pool running, and believe me, her HR was way up...
We also used relatively easy pool runs just to flush out the legs a bit more on recovery days, or after having done the main running session(s) of the day...
We lived on a lake just outside Victoria, and often during summer months, several of our top runners would add an easy 30 minute run in the lake to their training load.
We tried to focus on a fast rhythm, with quick knee lift and lots of support from the arms...

But if all you are doing is pool running, you can do more interval work than you would normally do.

[hoey]

I agree with ronb's comment that intervals are not necessary in a pool run.

I used to do a lot of pool runs during my injury time at SFU, and I would find that a long tempo effort was the most effective way to get a good pool workout. I found that it would take longer to find that groove while pool running, so intervals pool runs weren't ideal although I'd sometimes to do fartlek in a longer pool run to switch things up.

Generally, I'd go for 60-120 minutes: start at a comfortable rhythm and then continuously increase the intensity until I was a tempo effort, then increase to race effort (I'd often imagine that laps of the diving pool were 400m and that I was racing an Olympic 5000, which would help break the monotony and give me something to focus on).

One of the benefits of pool running is that you can push yourself much harder than possible on dry land. In normal running, there is a limit to the level of fatigue one can hit before they can no longer hold themselves upright and collapse on the ground, but due to the buoyancy of the water, one can get into an almost trance-like state of total-exertion pool running. [NOTE: make sure you have a lifeguard watching while you're doing this!]

[SI]

Apr 24, 2010 0:00:21 GMT -5 hoey said:

I agree with ronb's comment that intervals are not necessary in a pool run.

He didn't say that. He said you don't have to do them every time. You should build them in to your pool program for the same reason you build them into your running program.

[ianham]

I've been x-training for nearly a year now on and off because of a compartment syndrome case that won't seem to go away. I find that both offer reasonably good cardio work in relation to running, although I much prefer water running simply for the fact that it's a lot more like the sport. Also, through all that water resistance building running specific muscle comes naturally.

I've done every kind of workout in the pool, from short intervals to long runs, and my HR seems reasonable for all of them. Although it usually is somewhat less than when I run, using those short strides like SI mentioned gets it up pretty well, although I prefer elongated strides because it feels like proper form and it really works the hip flexors.

One question though, belt or no belt? I've tried both and prefer with the belt because without it my back is a mess for a couple days.

Also, if you know why 6 months post-surgery I'm still having the same symptoms as before, mainly in the soleus, I'd like to hear. 'Cause when your surgeon and 3 other orthopedic docs give up on you, any help is appreciated.

[SI]

Apr 24, 2010 8:14:17 GMT -5 ianham said:

One question though, belt or no belt?

Belt so you can focus on form more(IMHO).

[spaff]

As SI said, form is very important, which is why I prefer a belt.

Further to this, be careful about overstriding and hyperextension of your knee. I've found that the momentum of the water can really put strain on the back of your knee if you're not careful.

Also, with regards to HR, I've found that the temp of the water seems to play a role with how high you can get your HR.

[ronb]

We always did the pool running without the belt. It reinforces the really quick tempo necessary to get max. benefit. We also deliberately avoided the extension, in order to get the tempo even faster. It was, and is, my belief that many distance runners run with too much extension in their strides, and if they learned to run with a shorter, faster tempo, they could become much more efficient. An uncompromising, fast tempo was something we were always aware of in training and racing. And being able to deliver this with a relaxed and efficient arm and shoulder carriage and movement. You can rehearse the latter in a pool running session as well, which is one more reason we preferred pool running to swimming...

[SI]

I think the problem with no belt is that most runners aren't very buoyant because of the lack of fat. Without a belt, some of your energy is being used just staying afloat.

[journeyman]

Apr 24, 2010 10:58:12 GMT -5 SI said:

I think the problem with no belt is that most runners aren't very buoyant because of the lack of fat. Without a belt, some of your energy is being used just staying afloat.

No belt can be useful in keeping the HR up. But it's probably only worthwhile if you can keep the form. We used to do two pool workouts regularly in xc season, regardless of injury or not. We started with the belt, but once you got good at it, we took it off. It's probably ok to go no belt if you are good enough at it. But I wonder how many are? I'm sure we probably lost the belt too soon.

[SI]

I don't think having a belt on limits your ability to max out. As I said, the hardest perceived effort I have ever felt, pool or track, was in the poll with a belt on.

[ronb]

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. The buoyancy thing is correct, but for me, that's a plus --- you get a higher HR when you expend more energy, even if part of that energy is just keeping you from drowning . And the good form is always important --- why practice mistakes or inefficiency? When I was at Uvic, there was a viewing window looking out over the pool, about 30 metres from my office. So, whenever possible I took a check on any of the runners who were pool running, and made comments on their form later.
I should note that very few of our male runners did much or any pool running back then --- maybe it was a "macho" thing or whatever. Almost all our of top women spent considerable time pool running, and other cross-training methods.

[pg]

Nobody has really answered jdomes original question. Many former competitive swimmers, who are now runners still prefer to swim rather than run in the pool. How do the two compare?

[jdome]

Apr 25, 2010 13:59:37 GMT -5 pg said:

Nobody has really answered jdomes original question. Many former competitive swimmers, who are now runners still prefer to swim rather than run in the pool. How do the two compare?

Exactly. While I don't want to discredit the merits of water running, it seems to me that most people who are big fans of it lack the ability to do a proper swim workout, making a comparison difficult. What I'm really asking (though I do appreciate the technique responses, because I am a complete n00b at water running) is if I go to the pool for an hour or so, should I be doing water running or should I be doing a swim workout?

[SI]

I would have thought the answer to that question was self-evident. I think we can all agree that the best way to train for running when healthy is to actually run(I think there are actually studies to that effect), so it would be logical to conclude(at least to me) that a run in the pool would have a better and more specific training impact than a swim.