Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Swimming Question (calorie burn...)

1 view
Skip to first unread message

KB

unread,
Sep 15, 2002, 4:30:08 PM9/15/02
to
Is it true that for a given workout, you will burn less calories while
swimming when compared with an equivalently timed/effort workout out of the
water? Someone told me this, based on lower body temperature, etc.

Thanks,
Kevin


Jason O'Rourke

unread,
Sep 15, 2002, 11:26:42 PM9/15/02
to

Check your heart rate. For me, it's pretty low swimming. It's very
high running, enough such that per measure of time, it's twice the
calorie count. But then again, I'm doing long distance open water
swimming - I'm sure the swim groups at the pool can give you a workout
that will elevate that pulse. However, you may still not catch up to
running - legs muscles require more O2 than the arm muscles.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Diego Modugno

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 3:05:11 AM9/16/02
to
Swimming the heart rate is lower than running just because during a swimming
your body is horizontal. For the same reason the swimming Anaerobic Thresold
is lower than running AT.
So if one runs and swims at the same percentage of his AT he will burn the
same calories
ex: Swimming AT 160 - Running AT 180
Swimm 1h @ 112HR = Run 1h @126 (70%AT)
So the problem is to find out your AT for each sport.

Diego


"Jason O'Rourke" <j...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:am3j1i$1rld$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...

MJuric

unread,
Sep 16, 2002, 11:56:20 AM9/16/02
to
On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 07:05:11 GMT, "Diego Modugno"
<diego_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Swimming the heart rate is lower than running just because during a swimming
>your body is horizontal. For the same reason the swimming Anaerobic Thresold
>is lower than running AT.
>So if one runs and swims at the same percentage of his AT he will burn the
>same calories
>ex: Swimming AT 160 - Running AT 180
>Swimm 1h @ 112HR = Run 1h @126 (70%AT)
>So the problem is to find out your AT for each sport.
>
>Diego

This doesn't seem logical to me. How can you burn equal
calories when using different muscle groups and doing different
amounts of work? what is the direct relationship between HR and
caloric burn?
I can do considerably larger amount of work at a much lower HR
using my legs than my arms. I would think that work completed is a
closer representation of caloric burn than HR. I.E. a person can squat
100 lbs with little effort and low HR. This 100 lb squat represents X
work and or X caloric burn. If this same person curls 50 lbs more than
likely the percieved effort would be greater HR would be greater but a
smaller amount of work would have been done and less calories burnt.
I'm not a doctor so I'm not excatly sure of what physiological
effects causes HR to raise and lower however I'm sure many low caloric
burning functions can cause HR to raise. I.E. Being Frightened.

~Matt

Diego Modugno

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 12:00:10 PM9/18/02
to
In an aerobic work the amount of calories burned is related to the amount of
oxigen burned in the aerobic chimical reaction that occours in the muscles
So to know how many calories are burned in an exercise it is possible to
look the amount of the blood that reach the muscles. For this reason one can
get the general idea about calories burned looking the HR. The level of
fitness is important, so if one is much more trained in running than
swimming he will burn more calories in swimming. In this case anyway it will
be difficoult to keep the HR low during the swimming exercise.
Of course from HR one can have a general idea of calories burned in an
aerobic workout

<MJuric> wrote in message news:3d85fc19....@news.choiceone.net...

Jason O'Rourke

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 1:42:35 PM9/18/02
to
Diego Modugno <diego_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>get the general idea about calories burned looking the HR. The level of
>fitness is important, so if one is much more trained in running than
>swimming he will burn more calories in swimming. In this case anyway it will

I think it would be the rare individual that burns more calories swimming
than running. I'm definitely better trained in running and I burn calories
at *twice* the rate I do when in the water.

MJuric

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 1:39:58 PM9/18/02
to
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:00:10 GMT, "Diego Modugno"
<diego_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In an aerobic work the amount of calories burned is related to the amount of
>oxigen burned in the aerobic chimical reaction that occours in the muscles
>So to know how many calories are burned in an exercise it is possible to
>look the amount of the blood that reach the muscles.

This discussion is very intriguing to me. Do you have any
sights, books, info etc that may go more into detail on the subject.
I'm still quite concerned about relating HR to calories or
oxygen used. Seems to me that the body would recognize a lack of
oxygen in the smaller muscles of the back and arms during swimming and
thus increase HR. The only oxygen that would be used is the oxygen
sent to the oxygen deprived muscles. The rest of the system would then
have over oxygenated blood. Or does the system somehow constrict flow
of blood to the rest of the body in direct relationship to needed
oxygen?

~Matt

Joe Domaleski

unread,
Sep 18, 2002, 8:14:52 PM9/18/02
to
I regularly train with my Polar S710 heart rate monitor and average
about 100 calories burned per 500m swimming, regardless of pace. It's
my rule of thumb estimate like 100 cal. per mile of running, which is
fairly accurate for me, too. Hope that helps.

Joe
http://www.joedom.com

Diego Modugno

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 3:00:54 AM9/19/02
to
Sorry but all the book I have are in Italian...

Diego

<MJuric> wrote in message news:3d88b89b...@news.choiceone.net...

Diego Modugno

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 3:14:32 AM9/19/02
to
Jason O'Rourke

> I think it would be the rare individual that burns more calories swimming
> than running. I'm definitely better trained in running and I burn
calories
> at *twice* the rate I do when in the water.


How do you know that?
Diego


Jason O'Rourke

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 1:09:14 PM9/19/02
to

Heart rate monitor, and common sense.

I can run 2 hours straight with an average HR of 176. For a shorter race,
it's a bit higher. But when I swim, it's closer to 110-120. No need to
lift the body weight.

For nearly all athletes, their AT for running is higher than for swimming.
Aside from being horizonal instead of vertical, the upper body muscles are
smaller and require less energy than the massive ones of the leg. And the
nature of water means that for most it doesn't make sense to go as fast
as possible, unlike for running.

MJuric

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 1:19:40 PM9/19/02
to
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 07:00:54 GMT, "Diego Modugno"
<diego_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Sorry but all the book I have are in Italian...
>
>Diego

Could you translate the title(s) maybe I can find an English
translated version.

~Matt

M Kochanski

unread,
Sep 19, 2002, 3:35:11 PM9/19/02
to
Check this web site:

http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/energyexp.htm


"KB" <kbe...@hfx.eastlink.ca.nospam> wrote in message news:<336h9.75126$C8.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...

Diego Modugno

unread,
Sep 20, 2002, 4:38:37 AM9/20/02
to
I have read:
Scaramuzza - Training in endurance sport - ed. Savioprint -1988
Fagioli & Bartoli - Training with a HR monitor - ed. Elika
Diamantini - Triathlon, theory and principle of training - ed. Sperling and
Kuper
and one in english very famouse, The triathlete's training bible but in this
you can find more on periodisation the training year...

Diego


<MJuric> wrote in message news:3d8a0700...@news.choiceone.net...

0 new messages