I swim with a fenix 3 and swim-hr.
For the same HR my running and biking shows similar calories (biking is with power meter).
But for swimming the calories is way lower, even if I compare sessions with equal Hr.
I think garmin calculates calories with distance (?) and I’m somewhat bad swimmer.
Anyone else noticed this?
Will the swim use the same amount of energy as bike and run given the same heart rate?
Heart rate will be lower swimming since your body is prone and the heart isn’t pumping against gravity.
I’m not discussion the point when the swimHR is lower. I can for sure
run soft at 110 avg Hr and swim at 150 avg Hr.
I wonder why the calories differ so much if Hr is the same.
Swimming uses smaller muscle groups than running or biking. At the same perceived effort the calorie burn will be greater for running than for biking, and even less for swimming.
Heart rate doesn’t correspond with calorie burn between sports. Otherwise we could just track HR and get a daily calorie burn number.
I would note that the calorie measurement for swimming on Garmin’s is highly inaccurate. The Garmin knows how fast you’re swimming, but not how much drag you are producing (i.e. do you have great body position or do your hips sink like a rock). The running measurement is reasonably accurate, the biking is in the ballpark assuming an average position on the hoods. If you have a PM, the bike one is easy to cross check.
Heart rate will be lower swimming since your body is prone and the heart isn’t pumping against gravity.
I don’t think it’s really the heart pumping blood against gravity that’s the issue, and the whole issue of gravity probably isn’t the reason - I could easily imagine putting someone upside down on a powermeter stationary bike somehow and having them crank out max wattage and compare to swimming, and it would stlil be a lot higher for cycling for the same perceived effort (provided they’re roughly similarly trained in both sports in terms of time/experience.)
It’s just the leg muscles are so much bigger, and thus pump out much higher wattage when stressed. This is pretty clear on a Vasa trainer - it’s nearly impossible for me to hold 100+ watts on it for more than 2 minutes despite going all-out, whereas in cycling I can put up 100 watts with trivial sub-warmup effort, and probably even with just one leg.
For the good sprinting swimmers who kick like mad, I’m sure it’s closer to run/bike caloric burn, but in general, the legs pump out the watts compared to the upper body.
Heart rate doesn’t correspond with calorie burn between sports. Otherwise we could just track HR and get a daily calorie burn number.
Is this really true? Heart rate corresponds with oxygen demand which corresponds with energy expenditure which = calories.
Read the explanation at the bottom of the article.
Tim
Heart rate doesn’t correspond with calorie burn between sports. Otherwise we could just track HR and get a daily calorie burn number.
Is this really true? Heart rate corresponds with oxygen demand which corresponds with energy expenditure which = calories.
I agree with you Ed as from what i’ve read, for any given person who’s in good condition, their caloric expenditure is directly proportional to their HR.
I haven’t read snapping T s link yet, but I’d guess that swimming would be a little different because of water pressure and being in the prone position, which would mean better venous return and stroke volume. The heart would need to pump fewer times to deliver the same amount of O2 to the muscles. Plus the shorter path to working muscles in the upper body.
That said, I haven’t read the literature recently, so I could be totally off base, but that would be my guess.
Read the explanation at the bottom of the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/...d=nytcore-ipad-share
Tim
I agree that the gravity affects HR, but it’s not the main reason why swimming burns less calories than running/cycling. It’s the muscle mass involved that accounts for that.
As for the lower swimming HR, I"d def buy the gravity as part of, if not a major reason of why it’s lower compared to run/bike.
I haven’t read snapping T s link yet, but I’d guess that swimming would be a little different because of water pressure and being in the prone position, which would mean better venous return and stroke volume. The heart would need to pump fewer times to deliver the same amount of O2 to the muscles. Plus the shorter path to working muscles in the upper body.
That said, I haven’t read the literature recently, so I could be totally off base, but that would be my guess.
SnappingT’s link simply repeats what you’ve said. I’ve heard this old “swimming burns less” stuff for years and, while i think that may be true to a limited extent, i think when we are swimming hard we’re kicking pretty hard too so we are actually using MORE muscles overall than in running or biking. IOW, we may well be burning more calories when swimming a hard 100 m than when running a hard 1/4 mile. I think easy swimming burns less than easy running for sure, but not when we’re really getting after it. And, in any case, a person who’s equally well conditioned for the run and the swim can easily swim 2 to 3 times as they can run so that they burning many more calories overall, just b/c they’re going so much longer.
I’m not talking about energy expenditure in swimming vs running vs cycling. I’m talking about heart rate for any given level of energy expenditure.
If you are generating 400 watts in swimming, vs 400 watts in running. (Generating, not applying. You can’t directly compare a swim power meter to a run or bike power meter. You’d have to arrive at that figure by measuring 02 consumption). HR is probably going to be slightly lower when swimming because the heart can pump more blood on each beat. More o2 per beat…
Heart rate will be lower swimming since your body is prone and the heart isn’t pumping against gravity.
I don’t think it’s really the heart pumping blood against gravity that’s the issue, and the whole issue of gravity probably isn’t the reason - I could easily imagine putting someone upside down on a powermeter stationary bike somehow and having them crank out max wattage and compare to swimming, and it would stlil be a lot higher for cycling for the same perceived effort (provided they’re roughly similarly trained in both sports in terms of time/experience.)
It’s just the leg muscles are so much bigger, and thus pump out much higher wattage when stressed. This is pretty clear on a Vasa trainer - it’s nearly impossible for me to hold 100+ watts on it for more than 2 minutes despite going all-out, whereas in cycling I can put up 100 watts with trivial sub-warmup effort, and probably even with just one leg.
For the good sprinting swimmers who kick like mad, I’m sure it’s closer to run/bike caloric burn, but in general, the legs pump out the watts compared to the upper body.
The vasa isn’t actually swimming though. You can’t really take a wattage from the vasa and say that is the same as the wattage produced when swimming.
Heart rate will be lower swimming since your body is prone and the heart isn’t pumping against gravity.
I don’t think it’s really the heart pumping blood against gravity that’s the issue, and the whole issue of gravity probably isn’t the reason - I could easily imagine putting someone upside down on a powermeter stationary bike somehow and having them crank out max wattage and compare to swimming, and it would stlil be a lot higher for cycling for the same perceived effort (provided they’re roughly similarly trained in both sports in terms of time/experience.)
It’s just the leg muscles are so much bigger, and thus pump out much higher wattage when stressed. This is pretty clear on a Vasa trainer - it’s nearly impossible for me to hold 100+ watts on it for more than 2 minutes despite going all-out, whereas in cycling I can put up 100 watts with trivial sub-warmup effort, and probably even with just one leg.
For the good sprinting swimmers who kick like mad, I’m sure it’s closer to run/bike caloric burn, but in general, the legs pump out the watts compared to the upper body.
The vasa isn’t actually swimming though. You can’t really take a wattage from the vasa and say that is the same as the wattage produced when swimming.
True - I’m sure it’s less than actual swimming since there’s a lot less body involved. Still, unless you’re vigorously sprinting , the swim muscles activated are going to be less overall than the leg-dominant sports.
If you’re not talking energy/power but talking HR, I agree with you, for gravity, etc.
Smaller muscle groups? How do you figure? Swimming uses virtually every muscle in the body
My take is that for any given HR, you are burning more energy swimming than running.
But it is easier to swim at a very low HR than to run at a low HR.
When I ran with a hrm, I don’t think my HR was ever below 140 ish . Pretty easy to swim at a HR of 90 to 100 or so.
If you’re doing it right, swimming uses just about every muscle group. Not just when sprinting either.
Smaller muscle groups? How do you figure? Swimming uses virtually every muscle in the body
Do you think you could ever generate enough power with your arms/back to push a bike pedalstroke as strong as your legs? Even if we built a magical contraption that allowed you to use ALL the power in your arms/legs without any biomechanical issues to turn a pedalstroke (of turning a pedalstroke with an arm which is goofy), you’d still hugely overpower with your legs in comparison.
The point is that you don’t just use your arms and back when swimming.
Read the explanation at the bottom of the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/...d=nytcore-ipad-share
Tim
I agree that the gravity affects HR, but it’s not the main reason why swimming burns less calories than running/cycling. It’s the muscle mass involved that accounts for that.
As for the lower swimming HR, I"d def buy the gravity as part of, if not a major reason of why it’s lower compared to run/bike.
How do you guys get less muscle mass involved in swimming vs biking. Swimming uses way more muscle mass. There is a reason it is easier to bike for 6 hours than swim for 6 hours!!!
Read the explanation at the bottom of the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/...d=nytcore-ipad-share
Tim
I agree that the gravity affects HR, but it’s not the main reason why swimming burns less calories than running/cycling. It’s the muscle mass involved that accounts for that.
As for the lower swimming HR, I"d def buy the gravity as part of, if not a major reason of why it’s lower compared to run/bike.
How do you guys get less muscle mass involved in swimming vs biking. Swimming uses way more muscle mass. There is a reason it is easier to bike for 6 hours than swim for 6 hours!!!
By that logic it should be easier to do chinups for six hours than to bike for six hours.