Probably a bit of a stupid question, but I'm just curious...

I've heard that other primates, such as chimps, can't swim because their body fat is too low. Which begs the question, can incredibly lean muscular people swim well? Or do you think it is more to do with general stature, a chimp is very short and stocky, a gorilla is about human height (males can reach 6') but again a lot stockier than a human.

Adrian

Not sure if this is an answer to your question...

I saw an a TV documentary about U.S Special Forces training, specifically U.S Navy S.E.A.L.s and they did mention that the trainees with a high % of muscle mass tend to not do as well in the swim portion of the training.

I don't think that it has anything to do with low body fat cause I have a lot of body fat and I still sink to the bottom of the pool....:D

I think, and I am no expert, you have to look at the complete body composition and the ratio's involved. I am guessing that a primate's skeleton structure is a lot stonger (heaver??) than the human structure to support the extra weight/muscle strengh. This make swimming harder.

Think of the chimp as a Big Rig and a human as a pick up. Yeah, theh big rig has a lot of power, but there is a lot of structure needed to support that power, hence is heaver and slower than a pick up truck.

Of coarse, I could be full of BS, but it sounds good in my head.

John

I'm extremely doubtful that BF% has much to do with it. It is true though that, in prolonged exposure to cool or cold water, a higher BF% is helpful because it's easier to maintain body temperature.

I think primates can't swim well because they aren't built for it. Adult male gorillas, for example, weigh in the range of 310-440 lb in the wild. On the other hand, smaller monkeys, etc. are usually arboreal animals, who live in trees and rarely come down to the terrestial level. There's probably also structural reasons like john0087 has noted -- denser skeletons, etc.

In regards to humans swimming, a high bodyweight (regardless of whether it is muscle or fat) is a disadvantage because there is a strong relative component to swimming -- the limbs need to be strong enough to be able to propel or pull the entire body through the water. Swimming is also an endurance activity so, beyond a certain point, increased amounts of muscle mass and strength are useless for long distance or duration activity in the water.

I don't think having a great amount of muscle mass or lower BF% is inherently going to hurt swimming performance. For most people, it should help. However, there's definitely an equilibrium between total bodyweight, strength, and ability that has to be maintained.

I-- denser skeletons, etc.


Yup -- Chimps have difficulty swimming relative to humans (despite morphological similarities) because their skeletons are much more dense.

I don't think having a great amount of muscle mass or lower BF% is inherently going to hurt swimming performance.

I think lots of muscle mass can hurt in the sense that it requires a significant amount of oxygen to power metabolically expensive tissue (like muscle)....so beyond a certain point, it can become detrimental to performance.

Just from speaking from personal experience, I had a much easier time swimming when my bf was a little higher than when it was extremely low. Admittedly though, I am not anything even close to a competitive swimmer .... but, when I was an extremely skinny kid, I had to paddle like crazy just to stay afloat. Now days, staying afloat is almost effortless. Damn it all :doh:

I think worldclass competitive swimmers are lean. I would guess 6-9% BF...And short distance swimmers (50-100m) can be really muscular too. Even long distance swimmers are often more muscular than other long distance athletes such as marathon runners or cyclists. And this is not strange since you use your whole body when swimming...

I think worldclass competitive swimmers are lean. I would guess 6-9% BF...And short distance swimmers (50-100m) can be really muscular too. Even long distance swimmers are often more muscular than other long distance athletes such as marathon runners or cyclists. And this is not strange since you use your whole body when swimming...
Well, it's not really fair to compare swimmers in general with marathon runners and cyclists. Outside of the 800 and 1500 free, the longest distance a swimmer will usually race is 400 m in medley or free. Even though the effort is greater per distance for swimming than cycling or running, even the "adjusted" distance (and I would guess total work output) never comes close to comparing with that of a marathon runner or cyclist.

It's natural that at sprint distances and world class levels swimmers will be more muscular. The average human, like we seem to be talking about here, isn't going to derive that benefit though as they won't be a competitive swimmer.

BTW, another thing you can add to that list of muscular determinants is stroke specialization. A fly swimmer, for example, tends to be more muscled than the other three strokes.

I think lots of muscle mass can hurt in the sense that it requires a significant amount of oxygen to power metabolically expensive tissue (like muscle)....so beyond a certain point, it can become detrimental to performance.
Oh definitely. That's what I was hinting at in my last paragraph -- that there is a point where it hinders rather than helps performance, an equilibrium.

Just from speaking from personal experience, I had a much easier time swimming when my bf was a little higher than when it was extremely low. Admittedly though, I am not anything even close to a competitive swimmer .... but, when I was an extremely skinny kid, I had to paddle like crazy just to stay afloat. Now days, staying afloat is almost effortless. Damn it all :doh:
I think that may have a lot to do with strength as well though. As an adult, you can make a much more powerful pull with very little effort than you are able to as a skinny kid. You might also have better technique now (treading water, etc.) than you did back then as well. Of course, bodyweight has changed as well, but I think the strength has probably increased much more than bodyweight has.

I think that may have a lot to do with strength as well though. As an adult, you can make a much more powerful pull with very little effort than you are able to as a skinny kid. You might also have better technique now (treading water, etc.) than you did back then as well. Of course, bodyweight has changed as well, but I think the strength has probably increased much more than bodyweight has.

Yeah, that certainly could be true. I was also afraid of the water as a kid, so perhaps my water treading was a bit more vigorous than it needed to be.