Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: On Average, What Burns the Most Calories? Swim, Bike or Run? [ericmulk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ericmulk wrote:
Jordano wrote:
devashish_paul wrote:
I did say it is subjective as we have no mechanical way of measuring.

But in general terms, what i am trying to explain that if you do several hours of training (or a reasonbly long workout like a 2.5 hrs workout in each sport), the average intensity will end up highest on the swim because most people cannot swim easy enough to bring down swim intensity during easy swim periods. I was not trying to compare same intensity across sports. I agreed that for the same intensity, more weight bearing will result in more overall energy burned.

All the reasons you point out for the swim-bike workout subjectively feeling harder are somewhat valid, but I ran these camps for something like 15 years and have observations from many athletes, over multiple workouts over multiple years. I know you guys want a contained study, and I can't offer that. Some observations over many years from the real world.

I think you guys need to listen to what Erikmulk is saying. I get that this board will be biased a bit towards bike-run. The down side is triathletes generally under estimate the workload from their swim in races and swim in workouts. It is likely much larger than they give it credit for.

Do the three standalone workouts of 2.5 hrs each to get a better subjective observation removing all other sports. Do them all tapered and rested. You won't be able to get the easiest swim intensity low enough to not get less gassed compared to an easy bike intensity or even an easy run intensity (as you can always walk). Easy swimming at some point you just drown.


I think that the bolded part is all we are talking about here, it directly answers the question from the OP. If you agree with that, you spend a lot of words making it sound like you don't.

To my interpretation, no one was ever talking about fatigue or being "gassed", and we couldn't in this context because it is infinitely individual (background, training, physiology etc) and subjective (what is fatigue really?). Some people can run 100 miles without too much issue, some can swim the English Channel and some can ride 50 000km or more in a year, you can't compare or generalize fatigue across distinct sports. Hell, I would be completely wrecked after 30 minutes of pick up basketball but I could ride 200k and mow the lawn afterwards.

All the rest of this about 2.5 hr workouts, camps is interesting but irrelevant to the question. You are so often right and the smart guy in the thread around here but I think this line of argument is not fully conceived.


If we think of this Q in terms of absolutely which burns the most cal on average in a single hour, yes, running wins.

However, since running is "more weight bearing", this means that you can do less of it over the course of days, weeks, and years. Top distance runners run at most around 150 mi/wk; at 100cal/mi, that's 15,000 cal/wk. Top distance swimmers may swim up to 120,000 yd/wk, which at about 250 cal/1000 yd, equals 30,000 cal/wk. Top cyclists at 700 mi/wk times 40 cal/mi equals 28,000 cal/wk. (The 250 cal/1000 yd and 40 cal/mi are my own personal estimates based on long observation of my personal caloric needs.)

So, swim and bike roughly equal vs runners who burn consid less. This is why top college runners watch their diets very carefully vs swimmers who eat "everything in sight". Of course, swimmers are generally bigger people than runners, roughly 50 % bigger if we compare 130 lb runner vs 185 lb swimmer; taking this into account the comparison is basically a wash but OTOH, a 185 lb runner is unlikely to able to run 150 mi/wk w/o injury. Thus in the end, swim and bike win out in terms of what can you burn the most cals with over the long haul. :)

I can agree with that, I can do a 6000 kcal ride and have fun but I think that I would perish trying to do that on foot. If we are approaching the question abstractly though, I always found running was particularly effective for weight loss. If I run in the off season, even burning only a 4-600 calories/day with it, I don't gain much. I can't really explain that, maybe because it blunts hunger, maybe the muscle repair required-Im not sure. But if I was relatively sedentary with weight to lose I would start running over the other sports.

Professional Athlete: http://jordancheyne.wordpress.com/ http://www.strava.com/athletes/145340

Coaching Services:http://www.peakformcoaching.com/

Quote Reply
Re: On Average, What Burns the Most Calories? Swim, Bike or Run? [Jordano] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jordano wrote:
ericmulk wrote:
Jordano wrote:
devashish_paul wrote:
I did say it is subjective as we have no mechanical way of measuring.

But in general terms, what i am trying to explain that if you do several hours of training (or a reasonbly long workout like a 2.5 hrs workout in each sport), the average intensity will end up highest on the swim because most people cannot swim easy enough to bring down swim intensity during easy swim periods. I was not trying to compare same intensity across sports. I agreed that for the same intensity, more weight bearing will result in more overall energy burned.

All the reasons you point out for the swim-bike workout subjectively feeling harder are somewhat valid, but I ran these camps for something like 15 years and have observations from many athletes, over multiple workouts over multiple years. I know you guys want a contained study, and I can't offer that. Some observations over many years from the real world.

I think you guys need to listen to what Erikmulk is saying. I get that this board will be biased a bit towards bike-run. The down side is triathletes generally under estimate the workload from their swim in races and swim in workouts. It is likely much larger than they give it credit for.

Do the three standalone workouts of 2.5 hrs each to get a better subjective observation removing all other sports. Do them all tapered and rested. You won't be able to get the easiest swim intensity low enough to not get less gassed compared to an easy bike intensity or even an easy run intensity (as you can always walk). Easy swimming at some point you just drown.


I think that the bolded part is all we are talking about here, it directly answers the question from the OP. If you agree with that, you spend a lot of words making it sound like you don't.

To my interpretation, no one was ever talking about fatigue or being "gassed", and we couldn't in this context because it is infinitely individual (background, training, physiology etc) and subjective (what is fatigue really?). Some people can run 100 miles without too much issue, some can swim the English Channel and some can ride 50 000km or more in a year, you can't compare or generalize fatigue across distinct sports. Hell, I would be completely wrecked after 30 minutes of pick up basketball but I could ride 200k and mow the lawn afterwards.

All the rest of this about 2.5 hr workouts, camps is interesting but irrelevant to the question. You are so often right and the smart guy in the thread around here but I think this line of argument is not fully conceived.


If we think of this Q in terms of absolutely which burns the most cal on average in a single hour, yes, running wins.

However, since running is "more weight bearing", this means that you can do less of it over the course of days, weeks, and years. Top distance runners run at most around 150 mi/wk; at 100cal/mi, that's 15,000 cal/wk. Top distance swimmers may swim up to 120,000 yd/wk, which at about 250 cal/1000 yd, equals 30,000 cal/wk. Top cyclists at 700 mi/wk times 40 cal/mi equals 28,000 cal/wk. (The 250 cal/1000 yd and 40 cal/mi are my own personal estimates based on long observation of my personal caloric needs.)

So, swim and bike roughly equal vs runners who burn consid less. This is why top college runners watch their diets very carefully vs swimmers who eat "everything in sight". Of course, swimmers are generally bigger people than runners, roughly 50 % bigger if we compare 130 lb runner vs 185 lb swimmer; taking this into account the comparison is basically a wash but OTOH, a 185 lb runner is unlikely to able to run 150 mi/wk w/o injury. Thus in the end, swim and bike win out in terms of what can you burn the most cals with over the long haul. :)


I can agree with that, I can do a 6000 kcal ride and have fun but I think that I would perish trying to do that on foot. If we are approaching the question abstractly though, I always found running was particularly effective for weight loss. If I run in the off season, even burning only a 4-600 calories/day with it, I don't gain much. I can't really explain that, maybe because it blunts hunger, maybe the muscle repair required-I'm not sure. But if I was relatively sedentary with weight to lose I would start running over the other sports.

If a person only needs to lose 15-20 lbs, I think running could work. Of course, many people gain enough weight such that running is not wise, or else they do try to run but get injured. Then they attribute their injury to "just getting old", ignoring that the extra 50 lbs around their belly was the biggest reason they hurt their ankle, knee, hip, or whatever. So, then they take up cycling, or maybe swimming if they can swim decently.


"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."
Quote Reply
Re: On Average, What Burns the Most Calories? Swim, Bike or Run? [Spartan420] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Spartan420 wrote:
damon.lebeouf wrote:
just going off what my activity tracking devices say, its always running then cycling then swimming... on average.


This is what my Garmin 945 says too. But, after swimming I much more exhausted and hungry. So I dont know that I trust those swimming calories. Im never as tired and hungry after a bike and running.

Water temp plays a role here. Even though a lap pool feels “warm”, it’s still cooler than your core temp.

There are so many variables to each activity that it’s going to be hard to say what burns most. I’m a very efficient swimmer. If I swim for an hour just doing zone 2/base build, I don’t believe I burn many calories. It takes nedt to no real effort to hold 1:18’s per 100y. However, when I’m doing higher intensity swims, I feel trashed after and can’t lift my arms up. Same goes for cycling.

I think intensity and duration is the biggest factor at play, not the activity. If I start running again, I burn a lot more calories running than swimming. A lot of swimmers will use running here and there to lean out more. I’m guessing it works because we’re generally shit runners and much heavier than average runner body types.

"The person on top of the mountain didn't fall there." - unkown

also rule 5
Quote Reply

Prev Next