Calories Expended?

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Fri, 23 May 2003 10:24:06 GMT

Hey Matt, Just for kicks, today I tried a couple of laps butterfly with my fists closed. Even though I mentally understand how butterfly is supposed to be swum, I figured my stroke was poor enough that it would be difficult, but I was surprised that it wasn't. At first breathing wasn't as easy as usual, but I quickly figured out how to adjust. When I finished, however, I noticed that a few people were staring at me. Maybe they thought what I was doing looked strange. Maybe they were just wondering why I was grinning. It's still funny. :p P.S. I didn't punch anyone.

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Fri, 23 May 2003 05:04:49 GMT

Burning calories, has alot to do with movment. Contiuning to move will help burn calories. But if you are only swimming, I dont think you can burn alot of calories. If you are combing other excerise. Such as restiance excerise and swimming. You will burn alot of calories. But key is that if you burn 1000 calories, you cannot go home and eat 5000 calories. ;)

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Thu, 22 May 2003 14:06:54 GMT

As I stated the best way for us to burn calories and prevent injuries is to not swim the same stroke all the time, whether we have the best form isn't the issue. Some swimmers are going to be more effective than others at swimming. Many tried different techiques to improved on their strokes. But for us that are using swimming as a form of exercise besides competiton, we like to burn calories. As for me, I think that as I aged most of my strength in the legs remain the same as when I was 20 years old, but I lost upper-body strength. One reason why the breastroke in middle age held together better with age than the butterfly did.

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Thu, 22 May 2003 07:20:52 GMT

I agree the formula may not work for very efficient swimmers, but the speed in the factor relates more to a level of effort to which an average masters swimmer might relate. We are looking for a ballpark calorie number... Do you know of studies which relate to caloric requirements of elite swimmers in training? Swimming 10,000+meters/day is different than a few thousand yards a couple of times a week...

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Thu, 22 May 2003 07:08:40 GMT

I disagree with that formula. Speed tells you very little about calories burned (regardless of weight) because, at moderate and slow speeds an inefficient swimmer can be burninig loads of calories while an efficient swimmer can be barely working at all. A person who swims poorly enough to GO NOWHERE can still burn a bunch of calories in an hour.

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Thu, 22 May 2003 06:53:51 GMT

Emmett says the really poor swimmer can burn fully as much energy as the really good swimmer over the course of an hour. This gets back to the original question... I saw a formula once that basically said: calories burned=weight of swimmer x factor for speed x minutes This book had the only realistic rate of speed factored into the equation that I have seen--in this case it was 500 yards in 6 minutes 40 sec = .097. So, according to this source, someone weighing 210 lbs x .097= ~20 calories/minute when swimming 100 yds in 1min 20 sec. So if you could maintain this rate of speed over an hour, you'd burn ~1200 calories per hour. Someone weighing 105 lbs would burn 600 if swimming at the same rate of speed. Various other levels of effort were roughly proportional. Unfortunately, I can't remember that title or author of the book, but it had similar factors that could be used for running, walking, biking, etc.

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Thu, 22 May 2003 06:16:54 GMT

Actually, an inefficient swimmer, in fact ANY swimmer, can become very well conditioned to do whatever it is they do for very long periods of time. The Really Poor Swimmer who uses his whole body to thrash lots of water in all directions while swimming slowly for an hour can burn fully as much energy as the Really Good Swimmer who uses his whole body to propel himself smoothly through the water for an hour. Conditioning level has little to do with skill level. As long as the Really Poor Swimmer has sufficient skills to keep going, he can develope conditioning every bit as good as the Really Good swimmer. I know swimmers that are very inefficient but have conditioned the muscles they use for their poor skills such that they can go for very long durations at Anaerobic Threshold (which is the highest intensity the body is capable of sustaining for a long duration). We call this "swimming like a back-of-the-pack triathlete". It's not pretty but they can do it all day long (and manage to spend most all of their energy doing it).

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Wed, 21 May 2003 14:37:30 GMT

An inefficient ("bad") swimmer burns more calories per distance swum, compared to a more skillful swimmer. (That is the definition of inefficient.) This is not an advantage, really, since this just means that he/she will not swim as far. A really good swimmer has the ability burn more calories per unit time (by virtue of superior conditioning). That is the factor that counts, if you are concerned about burning off your lunch buffet.

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Wed, 21 May 2003 13:59:01 GMT

No, I understand the concept of swimming butterfly with the entire body, and I've even read some of Emmett's articles on the subject (and learned from them). That's not why I was laughing. I was laughing because of all the people in my pool who can't stay in their own lanes or on their sides of the lanes and keep kicking and hitting other swimmers, or just generally getting in the way at unexpected moments. I picture what a shock it would be for some of these folks to encounter the fists instead of just whacking fingers over the lane ropes. Emmett would probably want to kick me out of the pool, so I wouldn't actually try to punch anybody. But it's still funny.:D

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Wed, 21 May 2003 09:00:05 GMT

I intended, but failed, to italicize the word "really". On my web site www.h2oustonswims.org I've got an article "Splash and the XXL Jockstrap" that gives a description of what I'd call really poor swimming. Check it out. There are several labels that I use for rough differentiation of ability levels of swimmers: Really Poor - There are some swimmers who throw their whole body into making lots water move in all directions (creating turbulence) while making very little headway. A person who does this day-in and day-out without learning better skills will attain the conditioning needed to burn loads of calories. Poor - There are some swimmers who have figured out how to eliminate a large part of the "moving water in all directions" and thus are spending less energy - but have not yet attained skills that allow them to avoid unnecessary resistance. Rhythm of motion is intermittent and there is no evident flow of momentum from one motion into the next. Good - Some swimmers have learned good resistance reduction skills but have not yet learned to use their largest core body muscles to do the majority of the work of propulsion. Also, these swimmers typically have a limited range of intensities wherein they exhibit their best skills. They are improving a sense of rhythm and beginning to demonstrate a flow of momentum from one motion to the next. At higher intensities their skills deteriorate. Better - These swimmers have learned to get most of their propulsion from core body muscles. Good rhythm and flow are evident. They have somewhat broadened the range of intensities through which they are able to hold all their skills together. Really Good - These swimmers have eliminated unnecessary motions and resistance. They have learned how to derive most of their propulsion from core body muscles and have figured out to maintain control over all these factors throughout a wide range of work intensities - from the very lowest intensities all the way up to efforts that ellicit maximal heart rates. Rhythm and flow are evident at all times and they appear to natural and almost effortless - even when working at the highest intensity levels. The two ends of the spectrum, Really Poor and Really Good, are where the swimmer has the greatest opportunities for burning maximum calories. Alas, there is a bell shaped curve with the smallest numbers of participants at both ends. Most people try, and succeed in, getting away from the Really Poor end of the curve as quickly as possible (at least if they do their swimming in public). But most never make it to the Really Good end for lack of information, instruction, feedback, time, facilities, motivation, interest or some combination thereof. BTW - I am a big proponent of swimming with fists - even in butterfly. I find that Really Good swimmers can swim most any stroke with fists at very close to their open-hand performances.

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Wed, 21 May 2003 08:25:34 GMT

Ah, Grasshopper-Shakey, You do not understand the Tao of the butterfly. The key to this stroke is NOT to swim it primarily with your arms. This will tire you quickly and result in butterstruggle even before you have gone a 50. The key is to swim it primarily with a smooth undulation the entire length of your body, and pull EASIER with your arms. For further explanation I refer you to the H2Ouston swim club web site, the Articles section, the two articles "Slip Slid'n' Away" and "Vive le Papillon" by Emmett Hines. (I can give you the web address if you need it.) True story: I was wearing fistgloves, and tried a length of fly just for yuks. I was amazed that this actually felt EASIER than swimming with normal hands, because I COULDN'T pull harder (thus my arms did not use up all the oxygen, and did not go rapidly into lactate acid overload). Matt

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Wed, 21 May 2003 07:53:30 GMT

I think he is talking about the fact that many swimmers have poor style and particularly beginning swimmers. I agree that his idea to have swimmers mix freestyle with butterfly is good for many beginngers who struggle. But the only way that beginners are going to get better in something besides freestyle is to do other strokes. With many beginners or lap swimmers that have not learn the other strokes. Most of the workout is still going to be freestyle until endurance is built up. Also, as he stated some 400 meter and 1500 meter freestylers and open swimmers mainly swimmers. But for many of us master swimmers that have learn the 4 strokes, some Im or swimming in the strokes is probably good. It is more likely to reduce injury,besides whether it burns up more calories or not.

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Wed, 21 May 2003 06:58:22 GMT

Emmet: On the previous page you said swimming very badly doesn't allow for the calorie consumption that the fit, efficient swimmer can achieve. On this page you say the poor swimmer uses up more calories. ??? Anyway, swimming is great at any level of ability.:cool:

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Wed, 21 May 2003 05:53:04 GMT

Originally posted by emmett If the only consideration is to burn as many calories as possible, swim all 4 strokes - but swim them really badly. :) Perhaps you could swim them with your fists closed, as suggested on the "You Know You're a Swimmer" thread. (Since I read that, I keep picturing butterfly with closed fists and laughing in the pool while I'm swimming.)

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Tue, 20 May 2003 16:03:58 GMT

A lot of elite distance freesylers also have done the 400 Im. Shirley Babashoff-won the 400 IM at olympic Trials in 1976. Janet Evans won the 400 and 800 meter freestyles and the 400 IM at the 1988 olympics. Some elite distance freestylers are good at other strokes-Mike Bruner the winner of the 200 meter butterfly was also a 1500 freestyler and Katlin Sandeno at this last olympics swam 200 mter butterfly and 800 freestyle and 400 IM. So, their are many distance freestylers that do some yardage in other strokes as well in their practice..

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Tue, 20 May 2003 15:57:16 GMT

In regards to bouyancy and which strokes to swim, I believe it was Boomer from Stanford fame that would look at how swimmers position in the water when they floated to determine which strokes and distances they were best suited for. Since bouyancy is a factor in swimming it would seem this would fit in with genetic makeup and what you are best suited for (ie someone with a great leg but a weak arm might make a football kicker not a quarterback). The question in regards to how many calories you burn while swimming is going to vary greatly from individual to individual - basal metobolic rate, weight of the person, how hard they work are the 3 key factors - with no real easy answer except swim and eat if weight goes down and clothes get loose, you could eat more if you don't want to lose weight ; if your weight goes up and clothes get tight you you probably want to eat less/workout more (unless of course you are the incredible hulk or want to gain weight).

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Tue, 20 May 2003 12:06:35 GMT

At 46, there is no great gap between my time in freestyle and breastroke from the times I seen on the pace clock. When I was younger my best time in freestyle was about 11 second faster in a 100 yard than my breastroke. Most of my life, I have been a poor backstroker, trouble with the wall for instance. This doesn't mean I should not workout a little on it, and I think as a teenger my backstroke would have been better if the coaches didn't have me workout with the other three strokes and almost very little yardage in backstroke. My fly isn't as good as my youth and I have always had a one beat kick. Granted a two beat kick is prefered but should I stop swimming it because I can't swim under 40 seconds like I did when I was 13 years old. In fact, since I swim the breastroke events at masters meets, I usually workout harder on breastroke than freestyle and even sometimes have done faster times in it than freestyle in workouts as an adult. I think that beginning master swimmers should workout on the other three strokes as well as freestyle and as some people here stated, they swim breastroke more correctly than freestyle when they began swimming because some people are able to pick up more on difference strokes better than others.

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Tue, 20 May 2003 10:13:42 GMT

You're right - a lot of elite distance freestylers do train all strokes. I was referring to the ones that swim predominantly freestyle - of which there are quite a few. My point was that since ALL swimmers use fat for bouyancy, separating out just freestylers and saying they are fat because they swim freestyle doesn't make sense.

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Tue, 20 May 2003 08:57:41 GMT

For the most part, open water swimmers tend to ply their trade (competition and training) in much colder water than pool swimmers. Over long periods this tends to increase the amount of fat they carry and how it is distributed. At any given speed the other 3 strokes require more energy predominantly because the positions the swimmer moves through are, on average, less streamlined than the positions a freestyler moves through. On the other hand, the other 3 strokes are, generally, swum at slower paces than freestyle. Plus, if the skills the swimmer has for the other strokes are not as well developed as the skills for freestyle, that too would increase the energy consumption. If the only consideration is to burn as many calories as possible, swim all 4 strokes - but swim them really badly. :)

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Tue, 20 May 2003 08:02:11 GMT

Now, some of the distance freestylers that have the most weight are open water swimmers like Lynn Cox. But maybe, that extra-fat helped her swim in the south pole. She weights the same as Tom Dolan and she is a foot shorter than him. But I agree with Emmet swimming freestyle alone is not going to make you fat. I read in Mr Phillip Whitten book on general swimming that the other three strokes burn more calories but if you are swimming freestyle at fast rates its going to burn a lot of calories too.

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Mon, 19 May 2003 13:09:34 GMT

"Freestlyers tend to store fat in their mid-section." - seems like quite a sweeping statement. I'd want to know that you'd seen this in thousands of swimmers before citing it as some sort of norm. Don't know what your gym pools are like but in the UK, most aren't longer than around 18 metres, so most 'semi-serious' swimmers stick to pools that are at least 25 metres long - otherwise they'd just get dizzy! Emmett's earlier, eloquent postings sum up what it's all about.

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Mon, 19 May 2003 07:37:45 GMT

In keeping with the original question posed by Perkunas...let me offer the following possibilities. (1) As I noted above, you can keep a log of how much you exercise, how much you eat, and how much you weigh. With some arithmetic, you can calculate your caloric requirement as a function of your activity level. For you analytical types, this can be an interesting thing to do. or (2) Just assume that you're burning 500 Calories per hour of swimming as a working figure. If you find that you are losing or gaining weight over time, then adjust the figure accordingly. (For you big, fit, powerful swimmers, it might be 800.) 500 Calories can be thought of as: (a) a homemade turkey and cheese sandwich plus banana; or (b) small roasted chicken *** (skin removed), plus medium baked potato, lightly dressed, and a half cup of peas; or (c) 1.5 cups of ice cream. or (3) Forget the arithmetic, and just eat according to your hunger mechanism. Eat when you are hungry. Eat slowly, so that you give your hunger mechanism time to respond. When you are no longer hungry, stop eating. When you are at a buffet, limit your quantities, but enjoy having a taste of everything you like.

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Mon, 19 May 2003 06:02:25 GMT

Freestlyers tend to store fat in their mid-section. The body is using the fat for buoyancy, so it's not going to be burned. All swimmers inescapably use fat for bouyancy - it is there and it floats. If the above quote were true then we'd expect ALL swimmers to gather fat pretty much throughout the body - perhaps a bit more in the legs than anywhere else. And we might see all those elite distance swimmers that swim predominantly freestyle tending to be even fatter than the casual swimmers. But, in fact, there is no metabolic mechanism that selects which fat will be burned or where fat will be stored based on balance in the water (bouyancy) or stroke being swum. Perhaps a more realistic explanation is that people who tend to gather fat around the middle, from the beginning, self select freestyle over the other strokes - perhaps because such a body mass distribution makes those other strokes more cumbersome than freestyle. All swimmers ALSO use AIR (in the lungs) for bouyancy. In fact, this is a much more effective bouy for most swimmers. Alas, MOST swimmers never learn HOW to use their natural air buoy to greatest advantage.

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Sun, 18 May 2003 16:10:30 GMT

Also, heard that the three other strokes-breastroke,Fly and backstroke consumed more calories than Freestyle. I notice when I first started to train at 3 to 5 days at an hour again, I lost weight faster than I did when I swam several more yardage as a teenager but I was a lot less overweight as a teen. My weight has basically remained the same for almost a year now but I think that we need to change our eating habits if we want to lose more weight.

RE: Calories Expended?

Former Member — Sun, 18 May 2003 14:46:32 GMT

Actually, a person who is very fit, cardiovascularly, for his sport will burn WAY more calories when working his threshold intensity than will a person who is only marginally fit working at his threshold intensity. How fit you are is really a measure of how much oxygen your system can process while engaged in your sport. How much oxygen your body can process ultimately determines how many calories your body is capable of burning during any given period of exercise. So "fitness" is also a big variable that also makes "working at threshold" a huge variable. Of course it IS possible to attain a high level of fitness for swimming very badly - and many people do just that. On the other hand, people who learn excellent stroke technique have a big calorie consumption advantage over those who suck at swimming. Excellent swimming technique involves lots of core muscle mass. Poor swimmers tend to flail arms and lower legs predominantly without involving much core muscle mass. The excellent swimmer might be using as much as 5 times as much muscle mass productively as does the poor swimmer. This allows the excellent swimmer to spread the work over a larger muscle mass, thus avoiding localized fatigue. It is very common in swimming to see an athlete who is limited by localized fatigue such that he cannot sustain the highest level of exertion in swimming that his heart is capable of sustaining in general. An athlete that is not actually at his cardio threshold for an extended period won't burn as many calories as the excellent swimmer that does reach his cardio threshold for an extended period. What all this means is that at slow paces, energy consumption is extremely variable across a population. We've all seen really good swimmers who, when swimming at very slow paces, exert less energy than Homer Simpson eating donuts. We've also seen very poor swimmers that, while swimming, look like a a big splash moving slowly down the pool. These people are burning LOTS of energy at those very slow paces. When we move to the other end of the speed spectrum the corelation between speed, work intensity and calorie consumption gets better. The very fastest swimmers in the world have all developed sufficient skills and conditioning to allow for maximum oxygen (and calorie) consumption when they choose to work at high levels so there are fewer variables and the range of each of those variables is smaller. Of course, since poor swimmers have self selected themselves out of this realm, the population we consider here is a lot smaller than the population we consider at slower paces. A calorie comsumption estimation mechanism for the population of swimmers at slow speeds is fraught with pitfalls. Such a mechanism for swimmers at much higher speeds is much more doable. In swimming we have a continuum of ability levels between these areas. But, I suspect that only at ability levels where: 1) technique is good enough to eliminate localized fatigue as a limiting factor to systemic metabolism and 2) cardiovascular conditioning levels are high enough for the swimmer to actually reach and maintain threshold paces for extended periods, can we begin to count chart estimates or simple equation estimates for calorie consumption as being at least in the right ball park. While such estimates might be usably accurate for elite swimmers, I suspect they are of dubious accuracy for the vast majority of Masters swimmers.