I try to keep a running total if my head of calories burned/consumed to make sure I eat enough. Know approximately running and cycling, but have no idea what to count for swimming. Let’s say you swim 3000m in an hour, including fast stuff, warm up, cool down, and drills. Approximately how many calories would you burn?
I tell my athletes to use 400yds as 100 calories.
CS
I tell my athletes “good job” when they stink.
No offense, but where do you get that number from.
Not trying to be a d-bag, either. It sounds like it makes sense, just want to know where you got it from.
It’s arbitrary.
I use the same numbers all the time.
100 calories per mile run/walk.
100 calories per 4 miles bike.
100 calories per 400yds swim.
Of course they aren’t scientifically accurate, but if your trying to watch what you eat VS what you burn, it’s pretty close.
CS
Instead of arbitrary, you could actually just call your method wrong.
Or I could call it right.
I said it’s arbitraray and not meant to be 100% accurate, but it’s pretty close.
And if you don’t wanna use it, don’t. Why the wise ass comment anyway?
CS
Can’t remember where, but I remember reading 600-700 per hour.
A quick search found this:
Can’t remember where, but I remember reading 600-700 per hour.
To me, that sounds about as accurate as saying you burn 600 calories per hour of running. Running is more dependent on distance, as 100 calories/mile. Was hoping for something a little more accurate than that.
If you really want the answer for you then you need to go get a v02max test and resting metabolism test. These tests will give you your zones and let you know how many calories (approximately, but far closer than the 400 meter test) you burn at a given heart rate. Then you can swim with a HR monitor for a while to get your base lines. This is my HR during intervals, or during a 1600 meter straight swim, etc. That is really the way you can tell.
Can’t remember where I got this but I have been using this computation for years:
weight (lbs.) x miles x 2.93 = caloric expenditure. For example (me), swam 2000 yards, so… 165 x 1.13 x 2.93 = 546 calories.
For cycling… weight x miles x .28 = calories
For running…forgot that one so I just use 130 per mile
Hope this helps
Your run one looks too high unless you’re doing a lot of uphill running or weigh more than the 165 you used in your first example.
Swim and bike will be heavily dependent on speed (both are affected most heavily by drag in exponential rates)
Most consistent rule of thumb I’ve seen for running (which tends to be much more linear than biking or swimming in weight/calorie need) is about 65 calories/100 lbs/mile. So if you’re 165 it would be about 108 calories per mile. In practice this has worked out to be very close for me for years of maintaining weight.
Can’t remember where I got this but I have been using this computation for years:
weight (lbs.) x miles x 2.93 = caloric expenditure. For example (me), swam 2000 yards, so… 165 x 1.13 x 2.93 = 546 calories.
For cycling… weight x miles x .28 = calories
For running…forgot that one so I just use 130 per mile
Hope this helps
That’s pretty close to what I said without all the math.
Your run one looks too high unless you’re doing a lot of uphill running or weigh more than the 165 you used in your first example.
Swim and bike will be heavily dependent on speed (both are affected most heavily by drag in exponential rates)
Most consistent rule of thumb I’ve seen for running (which tends to be much more linear than biking or swimming in weight/calorie need) is about 65 calories/100 lbs/mile. So if you’re 165 it would be about 108 calories per mile. In practice this has worked out to be very close for me for years of maintaining weight.
That’s pretty close to what I said without all the math.
If you’re heavier, then add a few calories, if you’re lighter then remove a few. Better shape, take a few off, worse shape, add a few.
Unless you wanna get a calorimeter, it’s never gonna an exact science.
Anyway you slice it, all this is a wag anyway, but it gets you into the ballpark. It’s good enough to control my body composition to whatever I need.
I also use a Garmin 305. It generally puts me at that 130 number I use for the run. As far as the bike, it is always higher than the .28 correction that I use. Maybe because it figures in the terrain. There is relativley little flat ground around here. But I use neither of those Garmin computations.
It’s arbitrary.
I use the same numbers all the time.
100 calories per mile run/walk.
100 calories per 4 miles bike.
100 calories per 400yds swim.
Of course they aren’t scientifically accurate, but if your trying to watch what you eat VS what you burn, it’s pretty close.
CS
The run and swim numbers seem pretty close; the bike number is way low. It would compute to 500kcal/hr or approx. 125watts to go 20mph.
I always calculated it out at 4500 yards per 1000 calories, or what a solid hour’s worth of swimming would get me. I think its a slight underestimation, especially granted my weight (185-190), but whatever.
Whatever it is, it can’t be enough to off-set how HUNGRY I get after swimming! What’s up with that? I am injured right now and swimming a lot more, but I am so hungry after swimming, it’s not helping me avoid putting on weight while injured, LOL.
Anyone have a calorie burn rate for pool running at 60 (or 120, both feet) per minute turnover?
weight (lbs.) x miles x 2.93 = caloric expenditure. For example (me), swam 2000 yards, so… 165 x 1.13 x 2.93 = 546 calories.
For cycling… weight x miles x .28 = calories
For running…forgot that one so I just use 130 per mile
I use the same formulas. Running is Miles * Weight * 0.653 – around 112kcals/miles for a 172lb person
I use the formulas to compare one year to the next. From 2007 I still have my IM, mary, and 50mile PRs and coincidentally my highest calorie burn at 409K kcals.
I’ve been curious about the Garmin calories count. I ran for 2.5 hours on Sunday. Almost no climbing. Did 17.4 miles and the Garmin 310 had me at 2200 calories burned. I did not wear the HR monitor for the run.
I had always thought that calories consumed was dependent on HR and effort , as well as duration (which converts to distance). Any idea how the Garmin can count calories without HR?