How We Compare
Walking MET ≈ 3.5; freestyle swimming MET ≈ 7.0; vigorous swimming ≈ 10.
Same formula: Calories = MET × kg × hours. Swimming's higher MET reflects arms + legs + core resistance.
Buoyancy removes ground-reaction force → no bone-density signal → walking retains that unique benefit.
Joint-friendliness
Swimming is the gold standard for joint-sensitive adults. Walking is close behind — safe for nearly everyone.
Bone density
Weight-bearing walking activates osteoblasts. Swimming does not — over decades this matters for hip and spine bone mineral density.
Practicality
Walking needs no facility, no learning curve, no gear. Swimming needs pool access and technique for efficient calorie burn.
Walking vs Swimming — 1 Hour
| Weight | Walk kcal | Swim freestyle | Swim vigorous |
|---|---|---|---|
| 55 kg | 193 | 385 | 550 |
| 70 kg | 245 | 490 | 700 |
| 85 kg | 298 | 595 | 850 |
| 100 kg | 350 | 700 | 1,000 |
MET 3.5 walking, 7.0 freestyle, 10 vigorous swimming.
Key takeaway
Swimming per hour beats walking on pure calorie burn; walking wins on bone density, convenience, and step counts. Ideal: both.
Want your exact number?
Real-Life Scenarios
The arthritic walker
Swim 2×/week, walk 3×/week — spreads joint load across the whole week.
The 60+ adult
Walking wins on bone density. Add swimming for shoulder mobility and cross-training.
The weight-loss client
Swimming's per-hour burn is hard to beat if the pool is convenient. Adherence usually decides winner.
In summary: Swimming per hour beats walking on pure calorie burn; walking wins on bone density, convenience, and step counts. Ideal: both.