Calories Expended?

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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...

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.

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. ;)

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.