"Swimming, leisurely, general" vs "Swimming, treading water, moderate effort"

Tester1987

Hello, I have been perplexed as to WHY "Swimming, treading water, moderate effort" is for me right now ~9 calories per minute vs "Swimming, leisurely, general" which is right now ~13 calories per minute.

It seems to me that treading water moderate effort should be more? OR maybe leisurely swimming should be less? Is there something I am not understanding about this or is there perhaps something not so accurate about these guesses?

sammidelvecchio

I think the difference isn't the moderate versus leisurely, it's the action. Swimming via normal stroke will burn more calories than treading water. Either way its just an estimate.

nooboots

If you're swimming, even slowly, you are still needing to move your body through water.

If you are treading water, even a bit furiously, you dont need to actually move yourself, just stay upright.

erickirb

Tester1987 wrote: »

Hello, I have been perplexed as to WHY "Swimming, treading water, moderate effort" is for me right now ~9 calories per minute vs "Swimming, leisurely, general" which is right now ~13 calories per minute.

It seems to me that treading water moderate effort should be more? OR maybe leisurely swimming should be less? Is there something I am not understanding about this or is there perhaps something not so accurate about these guesses?

I would argue and say they are both overestimated by a fair margin. as is most exercise listed in MFP

lorrpb

For me personally, I feel 10 cal per minute is an all out effort and everything else gets scaled back from there. Even elite athletes who've been tested don't claim to burn more than 1,000 cals per hour and I know I'm nowhere near their level. I know about all the mitigating factors based on fitness level, etc, blah blah, but that's what makes sense for me and has proven accurate over a 5 year period.

Jthanmyfitnesspal

I swim vigorously for 45 minutes 2-3 times a week. For a long time, I entered it as "Swimming laps, freestyle, fast, vigorous effort" (788kcal/hour). With that estimate and good food logging I consistently controlled my weight, so it must be pretty accurate.

More recently, I've used a Garmin watch while swimming. It counts strokes and lengths and knows your total time (but not you HR). Also, it doesn't register kick sets. Overall, its calorie estimate is about 15% lower than the MFP estimates for the same workout. (Which, generally bugs me. But I'm doing well in maintenance and not logging all that carefully.)

For any case, you need to make your best guess and then go by your appetite and, ultimately, by your weight trend.

Best of luck!