And swimming has more advantages than just being cold : it provides your cardio in a non damaging way (contrary to running) and you gain a valuable skill that can save your life.
"The results suggest that in terms of beneficial effects on body composition, there is no difference between aerobic exercise on land and in water as long as intensity, duration and frequency of workouts are comparable. [..] However, swimming as the exclusive sport could be problematic, because the small load on the skeleton is not favourable to prevent osteoporosis"
http://limmatsharks.com/Swimming%2BFatReduction/index.html http://www.limmatsharks.com/Fatburner/
Generally, the articles of Limmat Sharks are great reads on swimming. I can't recommend them enough.
I've read in the past that being cold from swimming tends to make your body think that you are in need of calories.
So casual swimmers will eat their workout at the vending machine, the one conveniently placed near the pool exit.
Would love to know why this happens though?
I always figured it was somehow psychosomatic.
May not be the correct answer for you, but it's true for me. In the winter when the temperature has dropped suddenly I often need to take a decongestant for a few days and then I'm fine for the rest of it. Crud in your sinuses (for me at least) caused by allergies (grasses in my case) or weather can trigger a low-grade fever and other cold-like symptoms. It's worse since I work in a heated (too hot, IMO) office and then have to go back out into the cold. This was less of a problem when I worked in a more "frugal" office where the temperature (while still warmer inside) wasn't so extremely different from outside.
There are ways to run that are less damaging (better equipment, like socks and shoes, or using the technique where you largely only make contact using the balls of your feet), but it doesn't change the fact of a shock happening.
That said, it's unlikely to be so damaging to you as to outweigh its benefits. Swimming is better mostly because water has less resistance than the ground, and pushing off isn't really a shock to anything.
I looked into this quite a bit some years ago and found no research to suggest more cushioned shoes, less cushioned shoes, pronation-control shoes, barefoot running, etc. have any effect on injury rates. Are there recent studies or info that I missed on this topic?
> it's unlikely to be so damaging to you as to outweigh its benefits
It's even possible that all the shock and load bearing of running /is/ a benefit.
Running is associated with acute injuries of all sorts, but as others have commented does not correlate with osteoarthritis or other long term injuries.
General medical consensus is that moderate running is an indicator for better joint health.
[1] http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134861448/put-those-shoes-on-r...
Sure, in moderation it's a small net gain, but few are the correct weight, without injury, and run in moderation.
Note: Simply being tall can have the same effect as being overweight and shorter. The knee supports 3d volume on a 2d surface so it has scaling issues. There is a significant peak load difference between a 5'2" runner and a 6'2" runner.
Edit: "We know from many long-term studies that running doesn't appear to cause much damage to the knees," vs. "In one study, Swedish researchers found that exercise, including jogging, may even be beneficial." So, at best "if you have a relatively normal knee and you're jogging five to six times a week at a moderate pace, then there's every reason to believe that your joints will remain healthy." Which is hardly the same things as saying running is not harmful.
http://www.jaoa.osteopathic.org/content/106/6/342.full
"Is there a causal relationship between running and osteoarthritis? The current data are based on small studies, and their results are often unclear."
I've previously come across the cited studies by Lane, "at 9-year follow-up, the results were the same; there was no difference in the incidence and progression of knee and hip osteoarthritis in runners and nonrunners", but had not seen Sohn's comparison of college varsity runners and swimmers, "There is no association between moderate longdistance running and the future development of osteoarthritis. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that neither heavy mileage nor the number of years running are contributory to the future development of osteoarthritis."
On the other hand, Schmitt et al found that "Osteoarthritis of the knee joint is rare in former elite marathon runners. The risk of osteoarthritis of the hip joint seems to be higher than in control subjects who do not engage in much sport."
"The current evidence in persons who participate in elite sports activity, particularly in sporting groups susceptible to joint injury, suggests that these groups are at increased risk for OA as a result of their participation, but it is unclear whether participation in the absence of injury is harmful. "
Weight and other health issues are a massive and hard to control for Confounding variable in most of these studies. Osteoarthritis causes (weight, injury, bone misalignments etc.) are also likely to inhibit running. At the same time running increases the risk of injury.
Note: Most of these studies are also talking about jogging not running as running is shown to cause damage.
However, from your link "Researchers22 found a significantly higher incidence of osteoarthritis in men (aged 20–49 years) who were involved in high levels of physical activity (ie, walking or running more than 20 miles per week). "
or how about some thinking/learning - brain consumes a lot of energy when it works. I mean when it really works - to save energy we push (as result of training/repetition) many things into habit, automatic response territory and thus most of the times our brain doesn't actually "work".
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thinking-hard-calo... seems to say, not really.