Anonymous wrote:Swimming for an hour + 1200 daily calories = "easy"

OK.

OP + her post = idiot

Anonymous wrote:Are you a tall male?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The average person needing to lose 50 pounds is very unlikely to be able to swim continuously for an hour. Most people don’t have that sort of swimming background. A pro triathlete who is doing 1:20/100 for an hour straight might go through 800 calories. Maybe.

I do think someone who needs to lose 50 pounds doing laps for an hour with no background in swimming is pretty likely to hurt themselves.

Anonymous wrote:Great. I’m glad that is working for you.

Swimming for an hour doesn’t burn quite 1000 calories…more like 700. And most people find that swimming for an hour dramatically increases their hunger and have trouble not increasing their food to accommodate that. But if that isn’t true for you, that’s terrific.

Anonymous wrote:I would get tired and drown after 5 minutes. Walking seems safer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boy, this thread is a downer, most of you PPs.

Good for you, OP!

+1
Can't let another person be successful without criticism.

Did you even read the original post? I’ll quote it for you and its definitive tone of “and that is achieved.” That’s like me saying a 5:30 mile is achieved by simply running. I’ll bet a huge sum of money OP isn’t capable of that.

“ Calorie deficit is key and that is achieved by swimming a little over an hour a day non-stop. Burns at least 1000 calories.”

OP was describing their experience. OP "achieved" the "calorie deficit" by swimming for an hour. People who swim are capable for swimming for an hour. "Non-stop" may is not defined and left for reader's interpretation (I interpret as being active in a pool for an hour whereas I imagine others could take it to mean swimming the breaststroke for an hour without pause), so can be debated. Regardless, your comparison is illogical.