swimming comparison to walking and running

RE: swimming comparison to walking and running

Rykno — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 07:52:01 GMT

I can run 21km in 2hours and swam 21+km (no GPS) in 6:44 this summer. going with the assumption that both are the same distance it would be a 3.36km running to 1km swimming

RE: swimming comparison to walking and running

Former Member — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:01:13 GMT

Perhaps you can find a copy of that book in your local library or at a used book store? They sell it at amazon: Aerobics Program For Total Well-Being: Exercise,Diet,And Emotional Balance: Kenneth H. Cooper: 9780553346770: Amazon.com: Books

RE: swimming comparison to walking and running

mjtyson — Mon, 29 Oct 2012 03:46:38 GMT

Many years ago, while I was in the military, I was tasked with coming up with a physical training program for my unit. I used Kenneth Cooper's book The Aerobics Program for Total Well Being. I used that book because it had a point system based on activity and time/distance. (In the end, my program ended up with each member having to "earn" a minimum amount of points per week to be in good standing.) As I remember, the book used typical VO2 max or calories or something like that to come up with the point system, to make dissimilar sports/activities equivalent. Perhaps you can find a copy of that book in your local library or at a used book store?

RE: swimming comparison to walking and running

__steve__ — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:34:19 GMT

You can simplify it by using heart rate and time. Just keep in mind swimming the HR will be a little lower due to the physical characteristics.

RE: swimming comparison to walking and running

rxleakem — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:17:35 GMT

If you're looking for a conversion to steps per minute, these links may help: www.10k-steps.com/.../pedometer.aspx www.walk4life.com/.../forms_activityconverter.aspx As mentioned, YMMV.

RE: swimming comparison to walking and running

Former Member — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:50:08 GMT

I usally use a 1:4 ratio - swimming one mile is like runnign 4. Various race record times seem to bear that out.

RE: swimming comparison to walking and running

aqueoushumor — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 03:38:02 GMT

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.

RE: swimming comparison to walking and running

Former Member — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:27:15 GMT

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.

RE: swimming comparison to walking and running

Glenn — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:07:11 GMT

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.

RE: swimming comparison to walking and running

Allen Stark — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:07:38 GMT

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.

RE: swimming comparison to walking and running

aqueoushumor — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:48:26 GMT

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?

RE: swimming comparison to walking and running

Allen Stark — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:22:37 GMT

The general rule of thumb I've heard is that swimming 400M is about like running one mile.

RE: swimming comparison to walking and running

mcnair — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:05:25 GMT

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).

RE: swimming comparison to walking and running

orca1946 — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 05:54:05 GMT

You could use time as the factor. I think swimming uses more overall muscle than either of the other two.