swim calories ?????/

Try this for some estimates:

http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php

Wow - that is one of the most comprehensive calculators I've seen - thanks for sharing the link!

What a great source! 

This calorie burning activity cracked me up for some reason  Family Reunion (sitting, talking, eating; not fighting)

 I downloaded this a while back.  The numbers are calories per hour.

ehhh.... I can't believe that table at all. 

1st, how would weight contribute to calories burned during swimming?  Certainly not at the proportions in that table. 

Secondly, that chart certainly doesn't take into account swim efficiency. IE a swimmer with a good stroke is going to burn significanly less calories than a swimmer with a bad stroke. 

lastly, I would stay away from any chart/calculator that goes by time only rather than distance/speed.  As distance and speed are more accurately measured that "light/moderate" or "fast/intense" describtions.  Intensity and speed definitions will vary with each person.

Thanks for the awesome resource!  Lovin' it!

That very well may happen.  But I would expect it to be the exception, not the rule.  Using "Fast/Intense" and "Light/Moderate" words to discribe effort is very vague and can't be used to measure distance and/or efficiencies.  I think self reporting efforts, speeds, intensity, etc, like this are just too vague to be trusted.   At least I'm of that opinion.

Swimming in non-weight bearing activity whereas running is.  The effects of gravity have little effect with the amount of effort/cals burned in swimming.  Now frontal mass may come into play here but simply using weight doesn't.  The same can be said for other non-weight bearing or limited weight bearing activities such as biking.  Weight in biking has an effect, but much less than running, especially on a flat to flatish course. 

Just to add on the weight effects. 

The differences between 130, 155, and 180 is 25#s.  The difference between 180 and 190 is of course 10 pounds(or 40% of 25)

The Cals difference between 130, 155, and 180 is 114 cals. The cal difference between 180 and 190 is 45 cals(or 40% of 114).

There is no way that in a non-weight bearing activity such as swimming can weight have such an impact to increase calorie expendiature nor for it to be linear as this chart shows. 

Here is the chart with weight ad cals, plus I added two lines that show the ratio between the weights and the cals burned.  The chart is clearly ratioing the cals with the weight.

While I am no exercise physiologist, it seems to make sense that a heavier person will burn more calories at a given effort than a lighter person while swimming.  It does not really matter if it is a "weight bearing" exercise or not.  It takes more energy to kick the leg of a 190lb person than it takes to kick the leg of a 130lb person.

You should have stopped there. 

It does matter.  You aren't lifting against gravity.  The reason it takes more energy for a heavier person to run is that they are lifting against gravity.  

Here is an extreme example to illistrate my point.  Imagine two people running in space(zero gravity, ie non-weight bearing) one is 130#s the other is 260#s,  is the 260# guy going to burn 2x the amount of cals as the 130# guy? 

Also, kicking only contributes a small portion of the effort that goes into swimming.  A great precent of the effort, ie cals burned, are expended by the pull in the water and core rotation.  The weight of the person has little to none to do with these events.

I'm not saying that all weights would have the exact same calories burned.  The heavier person would more than likely have more cals burned, but it wouldn't be as much as predicted nor would it be linear as predicted in this chart.   The increased cals base on weight is showing weight to have about the same impact as in running. 

Just a point to add here.  Right the chart is "clearly ratioing[sic] the cals with the weight". As I pointed out, it is doing so in a linear matter.  IOW - straight.  The 1st pound over 130 cause as much effort as the next pound, as does the next pound, as does the next etc.  Rationaly that simply can't be the case in a non-weight bearing activity such as swimming. 

I can predict, according to this chart,  that the cals spent by a 205# person would be 743 and by a 260# person, would be 1180(give or take a cals or 2).  Again, that simply can't be accurate.  

Does the 260 pound guy have the same %age of lean muscle mass as the 130#er?  If he's moving twice the muscle then wouldn't he burn (all else equal) twice the calories?  It'll be far less than if he was working against gravity, of course.

Oh, you should have told me you are an exercise physiologist!?!?

I started giving an explanation as to why I gave leg kicking as an example, same would hold true for arms, etc, but then decided to find some scientific examples.  So, I found this calculator

 http://www.self.com/fitness/activity/calculators/swimming/result?weightPounds=100&duration=60&activity=&met=7.0&submit.x=78&submit.y=8#init

It shows that a 200lb person expends twice the calories as 100lb person expending the same effort.  Basically backing up the numbers in the chart above.  It is based on a book written by this guy;

http://www.hles.appstate.edu/dept_info/faculty.php?ID=3

How do your credentials stack up against his?

That calculator produces the following results:

• You burn 666.78calories during 60 minutes of Swimming for 200#s. 
  You burn 333.9 calories during 60 minutes of Swimming for 100#s. 
• You burn 1524.06 calories during 60 minutes of Running for 200#s 
  You burn 762.03 calories during 60 minutes of Running for 100#s.

I would love to hear how the effects of weight are the same for swimming as it is for running.  Infact, regardless of the activity, from yoga, biking, downhill sking, kayaking, and giving a massage, the amount of cals burned, according to this calculator,  for the 100# person is exactly 2x the amount for the 200# person.  This simply isn't the case and anyone who believes that just isn't thinking clearly.  But I know, it is on the internet so it must be true.

You also assume that the calculator was based on his book.  There is nothing on the page to suggests that.