Is 20 minutes of swimming better exercise than 20 minutes of running?

yes, larger calorie burn, more muscles used. But only if you can actually swim continuosly for 20 min.

yeah make sure you can go for the full 20 at least 20 minutes. go nice and slow to make sure you can keep going the full time.

And to answer the question its works more muscles and is a great workout. however if you want to be a better RUNNER it is better to run 30-40 minutes than swim for 20. Since you said you were injured swimming is the best cross training

You guys are dumb. No it is not better. If anything, you'll probably have to do 50-70 minutes of cross training a day (Biking/swimming) just to maintain current running fitness. Depressing, but true. Next time you're in the pool check your heart rate, maybe 130? And you barely use your legs.

thedirector wrote:

yes, larger calorie burn, more muscles used. But only if you can actually swim continuosly for 20 min.

Well for a 140lb male exercising for 20min;

Activity Calories burned

Swimming - moderate 129

Swimming - vigorous 207

Running 8 mph 286

20 minutes of swimming IN ADDITION to 20 minutes of running is better than 20 minutes of running.

Actually 1 minute of swimming IN ADDITION to 20 minutes of running is better than 20 minutes of running!

Sloppy question asker wrote:

I gotta say, 20 minutes of swimming feels like about as much exercise as 30-40 minutes of running, probably because I'm just not used it. But is it also simply just better exercise in general? It seems too work more muscles, and is pretty good cardio, too.

"Better exercise" is really vague.

When comparing cardio benefits-- simply comparing your heart rate works pretty well. If you typically run for 20 minutes with your heart rate at 120, try to swim for the same 20 minutes with the same heart rate to get the same cardio benefit. This is actually pretty hard to do since your head will only be out of the water intermittently (not to mention that swimming pretty much has to be done in intervals to get your heart rate up), but it works pretty well.

As for working more muscles-- yes-- swimming not only works your upper body but also lets you work it in a number of ways. Also-- each stroke works you in a slightly different way.

Finally, as you get older, you'll come to appreciate the lack of pounding in swimming. In other words, swimming is "better exercise" because you are less likely to get injured. Even old farts like me can swim for 2-3 hours a day without injury...

doomb wrote:

You guys are dumb. No it is not better. If anything, you'll probably have to do 50-70 minutes of cross training a day (Biking/swimming) just to maintain current running fitness. Depressing, but true. Next time you're in the pool check your heart rate, maybe 130? And you barely use your legs.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

You are the swimming equivalent of a hobbyjogger, so STFU.

If you run 9-minute miles, is your heart rate going to be over 130? No. Same if you are a crappy swimmer who can't actually work hard because you actually can't swim.

Endurance sports requiring technique (swimming, XC skiing, rowing, etc) all require a certain amount of SKILL to be able to exert yourself.

How fast are you swimming when your heart rate is 130? The WR for the 1500 is under 15 minutes, so unless you're there maybe you just need to ACTUALLY SWIM FASTER. As a swimmer, I used to be with 5 of max HR for huge intervals, day in and day out - far longer than you can running.

You might burn more calories running because the muscles that you use for running are used to it. They can do more work before getting tired.

However, diversity is good when it comes to training...the very fact that your body is less used to swimming means that you get more out of it.

You will probably be more sore the day after swimming 20min than running 20min. It's a sign that your body is adapting.