I'm in a new class for a comprehensive lifestyle change, mainly transitioning to a vegan diet. Of course, exercise is a part of this, and I exercise quite a bit. We are to wear a pedometer to keep track of the miles we walk everyday. I swim a mile everyday and would like to know if anyone knows how to convert swimming or compare swimming to walking. I've searched the web, and get different answers. Help?:)
I agree with Oz; if it takes you 40 minutes to swim a mile and the same amount of time to walk two miles then you have your conversion. Though swimming is probably somewhere between walking and running in terms of your overall effort. If you swim at leisurely pace, then it's closer to walking in terms of exertion; if you're banging out high intensity intervals it my be closer to the effort of a hard run.
It's always tricky gauging relative efforts btwn these activities because swimming uses more muscles and has water resistance, to be sure, but running is a weight-bearing activity in which you have to overcome gravity (which is why it burns more calories).
A long time ago I heard 1 mile swimming equals 4 miles running (or walking-less exertion, more time comes out about even). Is that about the same as the 400m swim to 1 mile run?
A long time ago I heard 1 mile swimming equals 4 miles running (or walking-less exertion, more time comes out about even). Is that about the same as the 400m swim to 1 mile run?
Yes,1 mile is about 1600M.
One of the difficulties in making a comparison is that if you are a very efficient swimmer, ala Phelps, you will burn fewer calories at any given distance than if you are struggling and thrashing your way through the water.
I don't think there would be very much difference between Michael Phelps and anyone else in terms of calories burned when walking. But there would be major differences in swimming. Swimming is much more technique based.
Therefore I don't see how you can convert one to the other with any degree of accuracy.
Former Member
Heart rate also matters.
If a very good swimmer spends 30 minutes covering a certain distance they may or may not raise their heart rate past a certain point based on degree of difficulty going up and down the lanes.
All this to say that lap swimmers with terrible form can potentially expend way more energy in their 30 minutes of thrashing around than someone with perfect technique. That's why heart rate might fall into the equation as well.
I think if your technique is reasonably good, then being in your moderate aerobic zone should be roughly similar to any activity in a similar zone (based on perceived effort-heart rate-whatever). Of course that doesn't take into account resistance, weight bearing, heat, and all the other variances between swimming and running. So, it is pretty rough. But, looking at physiological equivalents, calories burned, time this should be a pretty decent comparison. Actually, I am not sure how these people with bad form thrashing around like there going to poke someone's eye out can go much more than up and back and up and back anyway.
Former Member
I usally use a 1:4 ratio - swimming one mile is like runnign 4. Various race record times seem to bear that out.
