Swimming calories

Is there ANY WAY I burned 203 cals doing a leisurely breaststroke for 35 minutes? 128ish lbs.

(Was in the pool longer, cut out time on the side and getting out to find a NEW floaty board thing because people kept stealing mine, btw what's up with people?)

No HRM. Heart was pumping hard for some of it, but mostly I just wanted to move and breathe consistently the whole time, for recovery. Bonus if I actually burned cals.

Replies

  • KathleenKP
    KathleenKP Posts: 580 Member
    Hmm. I'm a swimmer and I *think* the swimming calories are GREATLY overestimated when I compare my effort on, say, an elliptical machine. But I am efficient in the water. My husband can't swim, so to get to the other end of the pool...he has to WORK.

    You put "leisurely" in your description, that's what makes me think I wouldn't count the whole 203 calories...maybe 100.
  • upgetupgetup
    upgetupgetup Posts: 749 Member
    That makes sense, it did seem high. I only did a slow, steady breaststroke, and a few laps of just kicks with the board now and then. I wouldn't call myself an efficient swimmer necessarily, in that my stroke's really imperfect, but I've been able to do that same crappy stroke since I was little (probably with no improvement, ha). So I'm used to that movement, I guess. Thanks!
  • Yogi_Carl
    Yogi_Carl Posts: 1,906 Member
    I burned around 200 calories yesterday doing a slow, continuous breastroke for half hour. I am a slow swimmer, 5'3", 166lbs. I don't think you are far off the mark, but maybe eat back half your workout calories to be safe.
  • Regarding swimming, I don't consider speed as being the definer of Calorie. This is due to me having a decent technique.
    Indeed I only consider "effort" when logging cals for swimming.

    Otherwise my "moderate" swim session would be someone elses "epic" due to their untrained stroke.

    However swimming is a great burner of cals, regardless, and most fitness sites broadly agree with the burn rates out there