swim calories

Kara_xxx
Kara_xxx Posts: 635 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Has anyone else thought that the swim calories on the database seem a bit of an overestimate?

Also if you swim front-crawl what do you log it under? Freestyle or "side-stroke"? The two have quite different burn scores on the database?

I guess the only reliable way of knowing is to have a waterproof HRM, but I only swim twice a week and I don't think it would be worth the expense for me. Do you swim with a HRM and is the score way out from the database or quite similar?

The trouble with swimming and perceived exertion depends so much on good form and therefore efficiency? I mean someone with bad form will be working much harder for the same length of time than someone with a very stroke efficient technique who glides through the water?

Any thoughts on this?

Replies

  • HannahsReturnToFitness
    HannahsReturnToFitness Posts: 86 Member
    Would be interested to know the answer to this also
  • shezlar1
    shezlar1 Posts: 19 Member
    swimming a lot at the mo to get full body excercise so keen to hear the response to this - BUMP x
  • schpanks
    schpanks Posts: 468 Member
    Also, I saw someone post on the forums recently that HRM's, while waterproof, don't transmit through the water. I wondered why my calorie burn was so low from swimming when I was working so hard.
  • BerryH
    BerryH Posts: 4,698 Member
    Front crawl is freestyle.

    Even waterproof HRMs will not giver you an accurate calorie burn estimate or HR reading. The radio waves do not transmit through water, and your heart rate is lower at the same perceived level of exertion because of the water pressure surrounding your body.

    That said, MFP is higher than other calculators for swimming - it averages out around 10 calories a minute for me, almost as much as running. I'd go with about 80% of the MFP burn to bring it in line with other estimates, unless I was really pushing it.
  • LindsayHowlett
    LindsayHowlett Posts: 44
    I am pretty sure it's over estimated, I swim a lot (pre-injury) and I always thought it was very high. I'd do 1.5 hours and burn over a 1000 calories doing breaststroke. I haven't invested in a heart rate monitor but I don't do the whole eating back your exercise cals so I'm less concerned about accuracy in terms of how much burnt. I just work as hard as I can and I'm happy then to have got the workout in. I am going invest in a HRM when I'm back after my injury!

    As for how to log front crawl should be logged under freestyle. I take side stroke to be breaststroke but to one side (you know when you are leisurely swimming along having a gossip with a partner etc!)
  • Swissmiss
    Swissmiss Posts: 8,754 Member
    My HRM works under water. I would invest in one. You can use it for so many exercises. This is the only way to know for sure just what you are burning.
  • BerryH
    BerryH Posts: 4,698 Member
    My HRM works under water. I would invest in one. You can use it for so many exercises. This is the only way to know for sure just what you are burning.
    It will work underwater, yes, but the calorie burn it gives you won't be accurate due to radio waves being unable to transmit through water. It will record the odd bits where the transmitter and watch are close or you stand up at the end of the pool.

    This from http://www.heartratemonitor.co.uk/
    Can I swim with my heart rate monitor

    Most Heart Rate Monitors are water resistant to 20, 30, 50 or 100 metres depending on the model. This is a theoretical static pressure measurement and does NOT relate to a practical depth. Most 20-50 metre water resistant HRMs are fine for surface swimming only. Please check with us before making any assumptions on water resistancy.

    Generally, HRMs do NOT work (read the heart rate) in the water due to inability to transmit the radio (FM) waves under water. They are designed to transmit in the air. It is possible to get a good reading in the pool only when your chest area, and the transmitter, is clear of the water. This is the same for all chest strap type HRMs.

    For Triathletes, this means that the HRM becomes a stopwatch only for the swim section. The unit will not be damaged in the pool, but it will not record heart rate (unless you are lucky, we cannot guarantee it, nor is it a fault if it fails to read HR while swimming) .

    For SWIMMING, there are currently three main options:

    1) Forget about your heart rate while swimming - get a POOLMATE swimmers watch and dramatically improve your swim efficiency. The Poolmate is the best innovation for swimmers since... googles !! Highly recommended. A swimmer never reaches the same levels of cardio intensity that a RUNNER or CYCLIST does - the chances of cardio OVER training in the pool are VERY slim. It is our considered opnion that a heart rate monitor for swimming is just not necessary - better to improve stroke technique etc. We recommend the POOLMATE swim watch

    2) OK - you're still reading so you really do want heart rate feedback from your swims.. then it has to be the Polar RCX5 - this heart rate monitor has been specially developed with a DUAL frequency transmitter - one for OUT of WATER that uses Polar WIND digital signal to prevent intereference... another for IN THE WATER which uses a more traditional analogue signal that works perfectly in the water. You still have to wear a chest strap, but you should be able to download a clean heart rate curve after your pool session.

    3) LIVE heart rate reading at the END of a set of lengths. We have had a lot of success selling the modern strapless heart rate monitors that have sensors on the front. The swimmer places their fingers on the sensors with the watch OUT of the WATER... within 3 - 8 seconds you are presented with an ECG accurate heart rate reading. A popular unit for this is the Oregon Scientific SE138 strapless heart rate monitor.

    4) Polar Health Check .... Polar brand this product as an EQUINE product (used to be called a VET CHECK) - hold it against the chest of the horse, and get a live heart rate. It has been used by hundreds of swimming coaches for SWIMMING with GREAT SUCCESS. Just hold it against the swimmers chest, and have a live heart rate reading within 4 or 5 seconds. The COACH wears the watch - the swimmer just presents their chest to the coach to push the handle against. This unit WILL work through a swimsuit or a Tri-vest. We sell this item from our sister site - HORSEBEAT.co.uk - SWIMMERS heart monitor

    We recommend in most models that you should not press any buttons under water. See user's manual for details. Heart rate measurement in a water environment is technically demanding for the following reasons:

    Pool water with a high chlorine (or bromine) content, as well as seawater, may be very conductive and the electrodes of a transmitter may get short circuited and ECG signals cannot be detected by the transmitter unit.

    Jumping into the water or strenuous muscle movement during competitive swimming may cause water resistance that shifts the transmitter on the body to a location where it is not possible to pick up the ECG signal.

    The ECG signal strength varies depending on the individual's tissue composition. The percentage of people who have problems in heart rate measuring is considerably higher in a water environment than in other uses.

    In the watch industry the water resistance is generally indicated as metres of water pressure, meaning a static pressure of water at the level in question. Most manufacturers' apply the same indication system, as it is well known and water resistance is an essential feature of the heart rate monitor.

    However, it should be noted that when performing any underwater activity, the dynamic pressure generated by movement through the water is greater than the static pressure. Generally, all the HRM's we sell are fine for use while bathing, swimming and showering, BUT, not under water activity like scuba diving.
  • amanda8o
    amanda8o Posts: 352 Member
    I'm planning on going swimming tomorrow and the last time I went swimming for about 3 hrs MFP estimated my calorie burn to be about 1,700 I found that really hard to believe so I cut about 700 off that,I would rather figure to low than to high usually I cut MFP's calorie burn in half just to be safe or take off what I think sounds better given the effort I used when swimming.
  • massefamily4
    massefamily4 Posts: 2
    yes I've thought the swim and cycling calories tend to be high. I use it as a baseline and know that it's always lower. I've been doing triathlons for 4 years now and struggle with my weight. Training has taken me away from weights and @ my age it's just not smart. The weight doesn't come off as easily and without weights it's almost impossible and I've proven that keeping 12 lbs on for more than 4 years. UGH ~ I use this site to keep me honest, when food intake is "bad" and nothing will fill me up i track that and see why i'm not where I want to be...................if i swim for 40 minutes it's tracking @ 490 calories, free style fast pace................I guess it's @ least 1/2 of that? Your thoughts?
  • Spence_
    Spence_ Posts: 139 Member
    Yeah it overestimates usually... It's annoying how there's only one version of breaststroke; because people in the fast-lane doing 'proper' breaststroke are going to burn a helluva lot more than people tootling up and down the slow lane with their cork-screw kicks and high necks to keep their hair from getting wet ;)
  • CookieCrumble
    CookieCrumble Posts: 221 Member
    It's WAY out for me. I have a HRM (Polar F7) with a chest strap. I wear it in the pool - with the wristwatch secured up in my long hair (which is blonde so never goes in the water), along with my MP3 player. Oh the glamour... :laugh:

    I get a reading of 270(ish) for 60 minutes. The pool is my relaxation time after the gym.
  • kepete
    kepete Posts: 268 Member
    Look on other websites to find a consistent caloric burn for your weight. You can enter the calories burned instead of using MFP
  • Kara_xxx
    Kara_xxx Posts: 635 Member
    ooh lots of helpful info!!

    I reckon the 270 for 60 sounds about right for me, around 5 cals per min?... I don't think for me it would be as high as 10 cals per min, that's more like my run burn.

    I'll have a little look at what other websites propose...
  • Bobby_Clerici
    Bobby_Clerici Posts: 1,828 Member
    I never used a HRM or trusted the burn rates in the MFP data base.
    I had to tweak my own numbers to find that zone. The calorie burn range for any cardio for me - Male, 190 lbs, is from 450 up to 700 - depending on the activity.
    EXAMPLE: Calisthenics = 450
    Mini-Trampoline Jogging = 500
    Tennis [singles] = 600
    HIIT = 700
    So, everything falls in there somewhere. Swimming for me is around 550 calories burned per hour.
    And what validates all these numbers are the fact that they work in the overall scheme of losing 1 lb of weight per week.
    That's how you can tell if your numbers are true and correct.
    RESULTS!
    Hope this helped - Good Luck :drinker:
  • Kara_xxx
    Kara_xxx Posts: 635 Member
    Lot's of different types of swimming here... even... synchronised... :huh:

    http://www.everydayhealth.com/Calories-Burned-Swimming.htm
  • Bobby_Clerici
    Bobby_Clerici Posts: 1,828 Member
    Lot's of different types of swimming here... even... synchronised... :huh:

    http://www.everydayhealth.com/Calories-Burned-Swimming.htm
    You burned 517 calories!
    This calculator nailed me :drinker:

    My above post "guess" was 550. I feel good going with these numbers.
    GOOD LUCK!
  • cowgirlslikeus86
    cowgirlslikeus86 Posts: 597 Member
    I log about 10 calories per minute for my swimming. Thats what I burn running. When I swim, I do breast stroke. I am pretty in tune with my breathing and heart rate so I think I can guess accurately. Swimming is a full body excercise, more so then running. You just have to know if your doing it whole heartedly or just tooting along. It makes a difference.
  • hsk71
    hsk71 Posts: 19
    My HRM (Suunto M1) works great in the water. But, instead of wearing the watch on my arm I attach it to my bather so its closer to the monitor and no problem with frequency loss. Sorry, guys, don't know how that will help you!! :)
  • samntha14
    samntha14 Posts: 2,084 Member
    I manually check my heart rate every 2 laps. Then I input my average into a calculator. I'll usually burn about 400 for 50 min.

    Edit: I do a 10 sec count about every 5 min. Get the average of that then multiply by 6 for an average of the workout.
  • Kara_xxx
    Kara_xxx Posts: 635 Member
    I manually check my heart rate every 2 laps. Then I input my average into a calculator. I'll usually burn about 400 for 50 min.

    Interesting. What do you do? Take your pulse for a moment? You don't mind the artificial break every 50 meters then? Assuming you're in a 25m pool? Or is it a 50m pool?
  • samntha14
    samntha14 Posts: 2,084 Member
    I manually check my heart rate every 2 laps. Then I input my average into a calculator. I'll usually burn about 400 for 50 min.

    Edit: I do a 10 sec count about every 5 min. Get the average of that then multiply by 6 for an average of the workout.
    All this stuff works on averages anyway. I swim in a 25m pool and I switch up my strokes so averaging is better for me. I get in about 20 laps. I don't push myself too too hard while swimming because it's one of the few things that will set off my asthma.
  • Kara_xxx
    Kara_xxx Posts: 635 Member
    Cool thank you for the info. :flowerforyou:
  • samntha14
    samntha14 Posts: 2,084 Member
    Here's the calculator I use. My HRM doesn't give me a total burn, it's cheap, so I have to use it every time I do cardio.
    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx
  • Kara_xxx
    Kara_xxx Posts: 635 Member
    http://www.everydayhealth.com/Calories-Burned-Swimming.htm

    Actually for my body weight this calculator for light/moderate freestyle comes out with 9 cals per minute, which is pretty spot on with all you who estimated 10 cals per min. :glasses:
  • Kara_xxx
    Kara_xxx Posts: 635 Member
    Here's the calculator I use. My HRM doesn't give me a total burn, it's cheap, so I have to use it every time I do cardio.
    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

    oooh fab thanks!! :drinker:
  • FitMama2013
    FitMama2013 Posts: 913 Member
    my opinion - for most people who are not especially efficient in the water, it's an overestimate. I would guesstimate the actual burn for most is 75% of what MFP says, but maybe even lower depending on a number of factors.

    since I swam in college and would be considered an efficient swimmer, I think the calorie burns are appropriate and comparable to the amount of effort I'm applying. it's similar to what I would burn on land doing other activities, but I know I can push further in the pool than on land - it's what I know how to do. if I were to go for a run, I wouldn't be as efficient as marathon runners, and wouldn't expect the same burn!

    like I said, just my opinion :) also, I've used my Polar FT4 in the pool before and it doesn't work - I swim in a bromine pool, though, so that may make a difference!

    Edited to add - efficiency comes into play with how far you can push it - obviously, someone who has never been in a pool before will expend an incredible amount of energy to swim one lap because they are inefficient. However, trained swimmers will be able to swim harder for much longer, thus where efficiency comes in.
  • Kara_xxx
    Kara_xxx Posts: 635 Member
    That link is really informative... also opens up a whole other can of worms....

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/articles/net-versus-gross-calorie-burn.aspx

    So are the database estimates on here net or gross?? *scratches head*

    [edit: I think that probably deserves a seperate thread].
  • Grlnxtdr0721
    Grlnxtdr0721 Posts: 597 Member
    my opinion - for most people who are not especially efficient in the water, it's an overestimate. I would guesstimate the actual burn for most is 75% of what MFP says, but maybe even lower depending on a number of factors.

    since I swam in college and would be considered an efficient swimmer, I think the calorie burns are appropriate and comparable to the amount of effort I'm applying. it's similar to what I would burn on land doing other activities, but I know I can push further in the pool than on land - it's what I know how to do. if I were to go for a run, I wouldn't be as efficient as marathon runners, and wouldn't expect the same burn!

    like I said, just my opinion :) also, I've used my Polar FT4 in the pool before and it doesn't work - I swim in a bromine pool, though, so that may make a difference!

    Edited to add - efficiency comes into play with how far you can push it - obviously, someone who has never been in a pool before will expend an incredible amount of energy to swim one lap because they are inefficient. However, trained swimmers will be able to swim harder for much longer, thus where efficiency comes in.

    I agree with this. ...I was going to try to add something, but after I re-read it, she has taken care of it.
  • Kara_xxx
    Kara_xxx Posts: 635 Member
    Yes that makes a lot of sense...

Categories