My body reacts differently when I train 3 hours in the pool or ocean versus when I walk or bike 3 hours on dryland.
When I swim 3 hours, I get out of the water famished. Mowing down a large stack of pancakes with eggs, bacon, potatoes, vegetables and a bowl of yogurt with granola is not a problem at all. This is especially true when the water is colder than normal.
In contrast, when I move for 3 hours on dryland (no matter if I am running or cycling), I am more thirsty than hungry.
The faster I swim, the colder the water, the rougher the conditions, the longer I swim, means the hungrier that I get.
Whereas, the faster that I move on dryland, the need for hydration seems to increase more than the immediate need for food.
However, it seems that the more that I move on dryland over time, the more weight that I lose. Whereas, even if I swim great distances regularly in the water, I rarely lose weight. Is that because I eat so much after I get out of the water? Most probably.
If we compare swimming for 3 hours versus walking or 3 hours, it is generally acknowledged that swimming burns significantly more calories than walking in the same amount of time, especially if the swim is performed at a moderate to vigorous intensity. Swimming engages more muscles and requires more effort to move through water, making it a more intense full-body workout compared to walking.
What about swimming versus running? It is generally acknowledged that running burns slightly more calories per hour than swimming, especially at moderate to vigorous intensities. Running is a much higher-impact, greater weight-bearing activity, but the caloric burn of hard swimming in significant surface chop or against currents or oncoming waves can exceed running’s caloric burn.
What is your experience?
© 2026 Daily News of Open Water Swimming
“to educate, enthuse, and entertain all those who venture beyond the shoreline“
World Open Water Swimming Federation, a human-powered project
New Open Water Swimming Educational and Motivational Course – register here