Breaststroke and fast freestyle both burn same amount of calories. How come?

Options

Replies

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,960 Member
    Options
    It's someone's best guess.

    No way to really know how many calories you burn in any given swimming session. Get a waterproof tracker or just use the numbers given.

    In a few weeks you'll know if they are close or way off. I'm guessing 526 calories for any type of swimming for 35 minutes is wrong...unless you're going all-out. That seems really high. I'd use about that many per hour (400-500,) but I am pretty light and can move through the water fairly well due to previous swim team participation.
  • tracybear86
    tracybear86 Posts: 163 Member
    Options
    I use this one, it takes pace and bodyweight into account. The calories do change from stroke to stroke but not significantly. Agree with the other poster that the 536 seems very inflated for 35 minutes.

    http://www.swimmingcalculator.com/swim_calories_calculator.php
  • kellie7850
    kellie7850 Posts: 50 Member
    Options
    My Apple Watch calculates roughly 500 cal for 30 mins for me 86.8kg female breaststroke moderate pace.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,960 Member
    Options
    tracybear86 wrote: »
    I use this one, it takes pace and bodyweight into account. The calories do change from stroke to stroke but not significantly. Agree with the other poster that the 536 seems very inflated for 35 minutes.

    http://www.swimmingcalculator.com/swim_calories_calculator.php

    Do you find that calculator to be accurate for you? It does require pace and bodyweight, neither of which the OP tells us. When I entered my stats into the calculator, I got close to 100 calories...which seems low...but then I haven't figured out a good way to calculate calories burned on anything other than walking and/or running on a flat surface. Everything else is, "take your best guess." That swim calculator seems like it should be close, but I don't know!
  • kellie7850
    kellie7850 Posts: 50 Member
    Options
    When I put my info in I get 465 cal which is close and I guess my watch would take heart rate etc as well
  • collectingblues
    collectingblues Posts: 2,541 Member
    edited January 2019
    Options
    cmriverside wrote: »
    tracybear86 wrote: »
    I use this one, it takes pace and bodyweight into account. The calories do change from stroke to stroke but not significantly. Agree with the other poster that the 536 seems very inflated for 35 minutes.

    http://www.swimmingcalculator.com/swim_calories_calculator.php

    Do you find that calculator to be accurate for you? It does require pace and bodyweight, neither of which the OP tells us. When I entered my stats into the calculator, I got close to 100 calories...which seems low...but then I haven't figured out a good way to calculate calories burned on anything other than walking and/or running on a flat surface. Everything else is, "take your best guess." That swim calculator seems like it should be close, but I don't know!

    It was definitely low for me. My Apple Watch is really accurate with my activity (as borne out by seeing what my weight does with what my intake/deficit is), and knows my stroke. My Watch gives me 280 for a 27-minute half mile swim in breaststroke, but the calculator was saying 190. That's almost 50 percent off.
  • Danp
    Danp Posts: 1,561 Member
    Options
    TBH I'm not surprised that they're pretty on par.

    I think it's that when people think of breaststroke they're imagining the face up, leisurely stroke that you often see old folk doing rather than the power stroke, full tilt, head down breaststroke you'll see when people are racing. That latter type easily works me as hard and leaves me as breathless as freestyle when I'm swimming.
  • tracybear86
    tracybear86 Posts: 163 Member
    Options
    cmriverside wrote: »
    tracybear86 wrote: »
    I use this one, it takes pace and bodyweight into account. The calories do change from stroke to stroke but not significantly. Agree with the other poster that the 536 seems very inflated for 35 minutes.

    http://www.swimmingcalculator.com/swim_calories_calculator.php

    Do you find that calculator to be accurate for you? It does require pace and bodyweight, neither of which the OP tells us. When I entered my stats into the calculator, I got close to 100 calories...which seems low...but then I haven't figured out a good way to calculate calories burned on anything other than walking and/or running on a flat surface. Everything else is, "take your best guess." That swim calculator seems like it should be close, but I don't know!

    I do find it to be accurate for me. I tend to "bank" my exercise calories for things like wine or eating out and I have not had any issues using the calories from that site. I had a Garmin Vivoactive up until a few months ago that did swim tracking (calories, laps, pace, etc) and this calculator is pretty close to that for calories burned. My Garmin died so I needed to find something as MFP estimates seemed really high. I think the issue with a lot of the fitness trackers is that they do not take pace into account and most people overrate their pace when swimming unless they are actually tracking it. I know when I first started I felt like I was putting in a lot of effort but really I was just out of shape! ;)
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,960 Member
    Options
    Thanks. I guessed at my pace for the sake of playing with the calculator. Now I'll have to go swim. :smile:
  • jesspen91
    jesspen91 Posts: 1,383 Member
    Options
    Have you tried finding an entry that includes distance as well as time? You could just mentally count the number of laps and multiply this by the length of the pool (most are 25 or 50m). And note down this along with the time. I think speed matters more than what the actual stroke is.
  • claireychn074
    claireychn074 Posts: 1,340 Member
    Options
    Danp wrote: »
    TBH I'm not surprised that they're pretty on par.

    I think it's that when people think of breaststroke they're imagining the face up, leisurely stroke that you often see old folk doing rather than the power stroke, full tilt, head down breaststroke you'll see when people are racing. That latter type easily works me as hard and leaves me as breathless as freestyle when I'm swimming.

    I think breaststroke is actually harder (as in full-on proper stroke). I can get good speed on crawl without much leg motion but breaststroke needs a good pull and ferocious kick. Butterfly I was always rubbish at so probably burnt the most calories for the least distance!

Categories