Yes, I thought I put that in, but didn't. It was less than a 10% increase in walking.
The calories weren't my main focus. I just wanted the credit on the tracker. I have degenerative disc disease and OA in both knees. Water is the way to go for me, just because it is easier on the joints. I feel very little pain after the pool compared to when I get home from say shopping.
Fitness Minutes: (120,501)
4/27/12 4:27 P
I love aquatic exercising, but have had to stop because the chlorine produced a horrible rash on my lower legs... probably because the skin there was already dry... It's been 6 weeks since I stopped swimming, and even with prescription creams, the rash is only starting to go away now. This is the 2nd time I've had to stop swimming for exactly the same reason. I'm going to give it 4 months before I try swimming again, and I will use vaseline on my legs first, and moisturing heavily after showering when I finish swimming. I really hate to have to stop, because I love swimming.
I had a hard time finding the post. I almost started a new one. The results.
You burn more calories in the water than you do on land. Because of the resistance of the water making it harder to walk--walking 20 minutes on land burned less calories than walking chest deep in a pool for 20 minutes. All things were equal or as equal as could be.
As far as the aerobics, it depended on what was being done. Jumping in the water gives you an advantage as the water does push our bodies up. The physical therapist did give the pool the win in the category overall too however, because you did burn about the same number of calories and it is a lot easier on the joints.
I left my HRM at work, so I didn't do it last night.
Since they're doing it then, I'll wait and see the results of this test on Friday. Do please ensure you come back and tell us!
I know chest deep will provide mroe resistance than waist deep - my HRM has had the battery changed and may not be waterproof. Waist deep would at least have given an indication - if it was more calories burned than air-walking, then chest deep could hardly go the other way and be less!
Wow--not even the physical therapists can agree on this. Now they have a betting pool at the hospital to see what burns more calories. Three different therapists are going to wear HRM and do exercise on the machines and then in the pool and see the results. Friday we will know the results. Most feel that walking in the water chest deep, not waist deep will burn more calories than walking on land because of the resistance.
Fitness Minutes: (15,905)
9,717 4/23/12 12:57 P
Can't wait to see the results of your experiment, Deb!
I've made the assumption we're talking apples and apples here and interested in things like the comparison between walking on land and walking in water.
Naturally, doing extensive water aerobics has the potential to burn a lot more than a casual stroll on land. I don't think that's the concept, though.
I'll be testing this tonight! I plan to wear my HRM for 10 minutes walking up and down my driveway, then 10 minutes walking up and down a pool (waist high water). Will be interesting to see if the added water resistance in the pool results in more or less calorie burn.
Fitness Minutes: (15,905)
9,717 4/22/12 11:17 P
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle; water aerobics burns more than low-impact exercise, but not nearly as much as high-impact exercise.
I don't think you can make statements like "water exercise burns more than land exercise" simply because there is such a HUGE variety of exercise in both areas that it's too generalized a statement. For example, there's no way that even the most vigorous of water therapies could match the scorching calorie burn of HIIT. That doesn't mean it doesn't burn more than walking at a sedate pace on the treadmill!
I have to agree with Heather. You'd burn less calories in the pool, not more.
Resistance training itself doesn't normally burn many calories directly. That's not what it's for. Calorie burn in cardio comes from movement. Do you move as much, as fast, as often, in the water as on land? Heck NO!!! The water resistance prevents it.
So yes you're working against resistance and that's hard, but since "movement" burns calories and you're moving less ... I'd really take that claim with a great stinking pile of salt.
One day I should test this. Perhaps today is that day.
Fitness Minutes: (15,905)
9,717 4/20/12 12:57 P
Well, I don't know about burning twice as many calories; while there's more resistance, there's less impact. ;) Low impact aerobics burn a lot less calories than high impact aerobics do. The additional resistance will definitely build strength, but like most strength exercise, won't burn more calories than cardio.
However, you can search for "water aerobics" and enter your time there to get credit! Just search for "water" and it will bring up a list of several water-based exercises.
I am taking aquatic physical therapy and do a lot of working out in the pool. How come there is no way to add all the work out that you do in the water to the fitness tracker. I just spent over a hour adding the exercises to the strength tracker but the cycling and stepping that we have to do is no where to be found on the cardio tracker. We should have some way to get credit for this. They say we burn twice as many calories working out in the water as on land and it is easier on the joints.
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this website can be used without the permission of SparkPeople or its authorized affiliates.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.