Looking at Olympic swimmers: ISTM that that might be the most ideal possible human body, health and physiology-wise, in terms of muscle proportion and everything being as it is.
Sprinters, football players, bodybuilders all seem to emphasize too much of one part or aspect of the body, but overall the swimmer’s body is as ideal as the body can get…is that so? (In addition to the fact that swimming burns an enormous amount of calories, and uses almost all of the entire body during exertion)
I would go with rowers - they never seem to be significantly over-developed in any particular area, they also exercise their entire body, and have VO2max stats that are usually outstanding.
Do swimmers or rowers suffering from any long term problems with joints or shoulders related to their activities?
I’ve often thought the same about tennis players – their sport demands stamina, strength, flexibility, use of multiple muscle groups, and their bodies seam to support this. Or maybe I just think their bodies are really sexy.
I think rowers have extreme muscle build in certain areas (thighs, arms) and my own amateur experience is that it can put quite a strain on your back.
Doctors do often recommend swimming as low-impact exercise. Though I’m not sure that it’s still “low-impact” when you’re doing it at an Olympic level.
Swimmers can have problems with their shoulders, especially rotator cuff tears and such.
When I was a competitive swimmer, lots of my teammates had various knee and shoulder surgery scars. Doing anything competitively that involves repetitive use can eventually lead to problems. But in general, swimming is a fairly heathy, low impact activity.
The body types I see, especially in the open water swim group I’m in, vary considerably. So the “swimmer’s body” mystique is centered around highly competitive athletes, not really representative of the major of swimmers. It’s essentially the same body type you see on many competitive athletes in multiple sports.
Their bodies or the activity?
Their bodies at least partly refers to the sort of body built for elite swimming as much as built by it: tall and very lanky with long arms and legs. On that aspect alone, no, not for mortality risk. Shorter actually has a life expectancy advantage.
For bone health swimmers (and cyclists) are at a disadvantage to more weight bearing sports. Less bone mineral density than sedentary even in some cases!
Build is a personal preference of course, for aesthetics and functionality both. Swimmers have particularly well developed lats. Wrestlers and gymnasts maybe most all over fitness but very metric dependent.
Impact of the activity on mortality risk may be a wash.
Pretty significant impact for all sports participation and maybe less for swimming than for say racquet sports.
Our evolution favored long distance walking, at which we are exceptionally capable animals. Humans evolved often walking big game to death. If we weren’t so accustomed to looking at ourselves more than at other animals, it would stand out more that we seem bizarrely to be half rear legs. We’re not the frail but tool-using exceptional case among all the creatures – we have specialties, and regarding athleticism, this is it!
So I figure that if there’s a sporting activity that represents a body ideal, it’d be walking (hiking or rambling if you prefer).
I thought it was more that humans are the superstars of the animal kingdom at jogging/long distance running, not just walking. ISTR that prehistoric humans basically would run down large game over a period of days- we can keep up a steady fast pace for seriously extended periods, while most other animals are built for sprinting away from danger, and then wandering around slowly for food. So when you have to sprint away from danger multiple times a day for a few days because those asshole humans keep jogging up with spears, it eventually seriously wears you out and they catch you.
I don’t think there’s any group that consistently trains every major muscle group evenly. Swimming isn’t as well-balanced as it appears at first glance; you don’t get much action in large extensors like triceps, quads, calves. One could argue that’s a good thing since it skips those groups that tend to get overused and overtrained.
My college girlfriend used to go on at length about soccer bodies. I can see the point; it demands a lot of aerobic fitness and puts diverse loads on the body (other than arms).
In that light I think basketball would be a pretty balanced sport in terms of fitness. All the limbs get varied loads in every direction, and you’re running around a lot.
I’d say strength and flexability training combined with the aerobic activity of your choice.
I was in the best shape of my life when I played Ultimate Frisbee in a pretty highly competitive league. I suppose it would compare to soccer in that there was almost constant running/changing direction in addition to jumping and throwing the disc.
I’m far from an expert, and I understand ANY activity has SOME risk of injury, but I recall reading a report some time back that purported to conclude that rowers had the best overall fitness, in terms of whole body strength as well as aerobic. But for most people, I’d imagine swimming is about as good of an exercise as one could get. Of course, some variety is best.
There’s a lot done with the triceps, the majority of the pull is done with the tris. Can’t really say much about the quads or calves though as I don’t know how much of the kick really comes from the leg muscles as opposed to the core.
Do you see the wide range of bodies in the men swimmers? Because on the Masters team and events I do the man vary in body shapes and sizes, while the vast majority of the women are thin and have a “swimmers” body.
Rowing is supposed to burn the most calories of common physical exercise and does so by working the most muscles. Like any other activity, done at an intensive level it will result in injuries.
So the best exercise, whatever it is, will be one done with a certain level of moderation. It won’t be about training to break records, except maybe longevity in good health. You need a bit more patience to get the full reward that way.
My friend was a competitive swimmer (collegiate level, not Olympic) and always complained that swimmer’s muscles were only good for swimming, and he felt no edge in any other physical activity.
In terms of a life-long activity, swimming is one of the best. It gives a full body, aerobic workout with minimal impact and chance for injury. There may be other activities which give a better workout, but they typically have a higher chance for serious injuries and injuries in general. What you think of as the “swimmer’s body” itself may not be the healthiest body. It typically would have proportionally large shoulder and chest muscles. One problem with overdeveloped chest muscles is that they can pull the shoulders together and cause a rounded back. Not a huge health risk of that, but it may contribute to back issues. Other workouts can produce a more balanced muscle distribution, but they may have downsides like involving more impact or risk of injury. Like soccer may produce a healthy body, but there are risks of serious knee injuries which could have long-lasting health consequences.
Open water swimming is an endurance sport, and body types range all over. Not many have the classic swimmers body.
Different people will always have different preferences in terms of aesthetics. Assuming health means longevity and avoiding problems, I doubt any sport has a monopoly. In terms of athletics - requirements for strength, speed, size, endurance, flexibility, technique and explosiveness are going to be different for various sports. Most people choose a sport they are better at, and probably already have the physique for that sport.
It is unusual for a top level athlete at one sport to be top level at another. So, aesthetics aside, any sport that combines several different events or skill sets will probably mean more overall athleticism - the more different the better.