RE: MUCH BETTER drowning

[John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

On Thu, 12 Nov 1998, Lyle H Janney wrote:

(proposal snipped)

Lyle, can I wave you off for a few days on this and work with you on it
later.  I think it SHOULD be able to be simplified, though I haven't given
it a great deal of thought (an exam coming in 2 hours, and work on two
papers this weekend :(  )

> 1 round from your total (you _can_ swim farther under water if you don't
> really push yourself, right John?)

Good Question ...

Hmmmm... You can spend a hell of a lot more TIME underwater if you're not
doing much of anything, however, swimming, esp. for distance is pretty
strenuous.

That is, If I'm trying to go 25m (length of the pool) underwater, I'm
better off trying to go balls-out fast underwater (making the distance in
15-20 seconds) than I am trying to streach it out over 60 seconds, or more
towards your question, at a rate that would take me 45-60 seconds.

Granted, above water I'd be MUCH less fatigued going slower, but
underwater, I don't think so.  

Now, if you're asking about BIG distances (for arguement sake, 500 m) and
you want to do it underwater, provided you surface for breaths as
necessary, then going at a comfortable pace is MUCH less taxing on the
body than sprinting as much of it as you can.  Again, though, that's more
a function of pacing over distance rather than swimming underwater.

I really think it boils down to how many breaths you get over a distance,
and how fast you want to cover it.

John Hogg			johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu

"I am amused by the simplicity of this game.  Send me your finest meats
and cheeses!"				--Kenny Mayne