Alright, so the other day I was thinking about jumping into water aerobics. I mean, I’ve heard it’s a great workout, but I’m kinda obsessed with tracking how many calories I burn during exercise.
So, I started looking around for a way to figure out how many calories I’d burn during a water aerobics session. I found this thing called a “water aerobics calories burned calculator.” I thought, “Okay, this could be interesting.”
I dug a bit deeper and found out that these calculators are pretty simple. Basically, you just need to punch in your weight and how long you’re doing the water aerobics. Easy peasy, right?
I decided to give it a shot. I weighed myself – let’s just say I’ve been enjoying my snacks lately – and then I planned on doing a 30-minute session of water aerobics.
- Enter weight
- Enter workout duration
- Hit “calculate”
I followed the steps, entered my details into one of these online calculators, and bam! It spit out a number. It was pretty neat to see an estimate of how many calories I could potentially torch in that half-hour.
Now, I know these calculators aren’t super precise or anything. I learned that swimming, in general, burns calories but the actual amount depends on your effort. Like, treading water at a moderate pace will burn fewer calories than going all out with some intense movements. One source I read said something like 3.5 METs for moderate treading and 8.3 METs for medium speed – whatever METs are. Sounds like some fancy way to say how much energy you’re using.
But honestly, just having a ballpark figure from the calculator is pretty motivating. It’s like, now I have a target to aim for. And I can adjust my water aerobics routine based on the estimate to reach my goals.
So, I’m gonna keep using this calculator as a rough guide. It’s not perfect, but it gives me a general idea and helps me stay on track with my fitness stuff. Plus, it’s kinda fun to see those numbers, even if they’re just estimates. At the end of the day, it’s all about just moving and having fun in the water, right?
Discussion about this post