calories???

Thechiplover
Thechiplover Posts: 118
edited September 30 in Fitness and Exercise
Today i took my 2 year old to my local baths...i didnt do much swimming to be honest but was there for a good 2 hour session, would i have used any calories? and how much do you think?

Any help is much appreciated

Replies

  • tmarie2715
    tmarie2715 Posts: 1,111 Member
    If you didn't swim, don't log it. Or maybe log it as walking, slow pace but for way less than 120 minutes, esp if you were mostly standing. There is a good post about not logging things like cleaning, walking to your car, grocery shopping, etc. Basically you already accounted for that when changing your MFP settings (active, lightly active, sedentary, etc), so logging them again as exercise isn't honest and isn't helpful to your weightloss goals.

    I am chasing after my 3 year old all day long, but I never log that as exercise. It is just part of the reason I can consider myself lightly active. :)

    GL!
  • fishdalf
    fishdalf Posts: 4
    Yeah I completely agree. In my work I'm constantly walking, doing patrols, and such, but never log it. It just doesn't help you in the long term. If you're struggling to drop below the line either more exercise or less food/smaller portions is going to have the greater effect.
  • Stuartm1
    Stuartm1 Posts: 101 Member
    If you didn't swim, don't log it. Or maybe log it as walking, slow pace but for way less than 120 minutes, esp if you were mostly standing. There is a good post about not logging things like cleaning, walking to your car, grocery shopping, etc. Basically you already accounted for that when changing your MFP settings (active, lightly active, sedentary, etc), so logging them again as exercise isn't honest and isn't helpful to your weightloss goals.

    I am chasing after my 3 year old all day long, but I never log that as exercise. It is just part of the reason I can consider myself lightly active. :)

    GL!

    Sorry I don't agree with this, you only cheat yourself if you don't count food or wildly estimate calories burnt. I sit down at work all day and entered my setting as sedentary. Even if you ar "lightly active" or active I cannot see any problem counting anything that raises the heart rate and calories burnt as long as they are monitored on an HRM and calories used are above daily BMR requirements. The proof of the pudding is in the eating I have lost nearly 50 pounds since February. Achieved through portion control / smaller portions / walking daily / cleaning the car / gardening / cleaning the house etc etc .all raise the heart rate you don't have to go to the gym to do this, What suits one doesn't always suit another but if you dont' try you will never know.
  • KeyMasterOfGozer
    KeyMasterOfGozer Posts: 229 Member
    Well, simply being in water will definitely burn a lot of calories, but it's not necessarily easy to measure. For instance, Michael Phelps eats 12000 calories per day when he's training. Needing this much food cannot be explained simply by the amount of exercise he does. This kind of expenditure would require something like 10 hours of full speed butterfly, which not even he can do. The simple explanation is that water transfers heat from the body 24 times faster than air.

    I've been experimenting a bit myself. I submerged myself in 15 gallons of cold tap water (68.3 degrees Fahrenheit) for one hour. The heat from my body raised the temperature of the water 4.2 degrees. The definition of a calorie is the amount heat required to raise one cubic centimeter of water 1 degree centigrade at 0 degrees. So we can use this to determine the calories I expended by lying in the cold water bath.

    4.2 degF = 2.3 degC
    15 gal = 56781 mL (1mL = 1 cm^3)

    2.3 decC * 56781 mL = 132475 calories or 132kilocalories.

    So, I could be pretty sure to log 132 Calories as the amount I burned during 1 hour of soaking in cold water. Since that would be what I expended above and beyond my normal resting expenditure, it's really close to running for an hour. Something to think about.

    P.S: at the end of the hour, I was cold enough that heavy shivering had started. 4 hours later, I'm still cold. :) Still, an interesting experiment.
  • melaniecheeks
    melaniecheeks Posts: 6,349 Member
    Yes you'll have used some calories. But not many. Log a rough 100 - 150 if you want, or ignore. Everything you eat, and every exercise burn you log, is an estimate. Never forget that.
  • Stuartm1
    Stuartm1 Posts: 101 Member
    Well, simply being in water will definitely burn a lot of calories, but it's not necessarily easy to measure. For instance, Michael Phelps eat 12000 calories per day when he's training. Needing this much food cannot be explained simply by the amount of exercise he does. This kind of expenditure would require something like 10 hours of full speed butterfly, which not even he can do. The simple explanation is that water transfers heat from the body 24 times faster than air.

    I've been experimenting a bit myself. I submerged myself in 15 gallons of cold tap water (68.3 degrees Fahrenheit) for one hour. The heat from my body raised the temperature of the water 4.2 degrees. The definition of a calorie is the amount heat required to raise one cubic centimeter of water 1 degree centigrade at 0 degrees. So we can use this to determine the calories I expended by lying in the cold water bath.

    4.2 degF = 2.3 degC


    15 gal = 56781 mL (1mL = 1 cm^3)

    2.3 decC * 56781 mL = 132475 calories or 132kilocalories.

    So, I could be pretty sure to log 132 Calories as the amount I burned during 1 hour of soaking in cold water. Since that would be what I expended above and beyond my normal resting expenditure, it's really close to running for an hour. Something to think about.

    132 Calories for an hours running, I'd get your heart monitor checked I think!!
  • Thechiplover
    Thechiplover Posts: 118
    Thanks for the replys, i didnt log my swimming as i didnt really know what to put it down as...
  • Stuartm1
    Stuartm1 Posts: 101 Member
    Yes you'll have used some calories. But not many. Log a rough 100 - 150 if you want, or ignore. Everything you eat, and every exercise burn you log, is an estimate. Never forget that.
    [/quote

    So the labels on most packets are estimates of calories in food are they?? ]
  • Thechiplover
    Thechiplover Posts: 118
    Another thing i was meaning to ask...are the calories burned on the exercises a rought estimate? i ask this because i took my daughter for a walk, im naturaly a brisk walker anyway...was walking for 45 mins and it said i bruned 240 odd calories!!! is this close?
  • KeyMasterOfGozer
    KeyMasterOfGozer Posts: 229 Member
    132 Calories for an hours running, I'd get your heart monitor checked I think!!
    You are right, I was thinking of half hour run, but don't forget, that you should subtract off your normal basal metabolic expenditure from what your HRM says in order to compare these numbers.
  • Stuartm1
    Stuartm1 Posts: 101 Member
    Another thing i was meaning to ask...are the calories burned on the exercises a rought estimate? i ask this because i took my daughter for a walk, im naturaly a brisk walker anyway...was walking for 45 mins and it said i bruned 240 odd calories!!! is this close?

    The answer really has to be buy yourself a heart rate monitor that way you will know for sure. Calorie settings on this site can only be an estimate because everyone burns calories at different rates
  • KeyMasterOfGozer
    KeyMasterOfGozer Posts: 229 Member
    Another thing i was meaning to ask...are the calories burned on the exercises a rought estimate? i ask this because i took my daughter for a walk, im naturaly a brisk walker anyway...was walking for 45 mins and it said i bruned 240 odd calories!!! is this close?
    This is not really an easy answer. Essentially, those numbers *can* be close, but the calories you would expend in a 45 minute walk will change based on your speeds, and inclines that you may walk up or down and possibly other factors. You would be better off getting a heart rate monitor (HRM). That will get you closer. That said, using the estimations from the site are better than nothing.
  • Stuartm1
    Stuartm1 Posts: 101 Member
    132 Calories for an hours running, I'd get your heart monitor checked I think!!
    You are right, I was thinking of half hour run, but don't forget, that you should subtract off your normal basal metabolic expenditure from what your HRM says in order to compare these numbers.

    Still seems wrong, I walk at 4mph and deduct 2 calories per minute for BMR (should be closer to 1.5 but 2 makes it easier) ie - 120 calories per 60 minutes deducted and I still burn more that 260 calories net for the hour.
  • KeyMasterOfGozer
    KeyMasterOfGozer Posts: 229 Member
    OK, cool, your math skills are better than my hyperbole. Congrats!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories