My WAG is that Olympic swimming - like Michael Phelps going for the gold in the pool - is the most intense calorie-burning activity a human body can possibly engage in, during the few minutes that it’s going on. Does an Olympic swimmer burn maybe 2 calories per second during such medal races, maybe 3?
Is there any other activity that could conceivably burn calories faster than that?
Setting yourself on fire, maybe?
But seriously, I’ve heard that wrestling can burn a ton of calories real quick (from wrestlers, of course), but not sure if more than swimming.
Wouldn’t the cool pool water keep your consumption lower than, say, marathon run through Death Valley?
Marathoners are not burning that much per second.
I would hazard bicycle sprint races in a veldrome. They can hit over 50 mph.
Reported for forum change.
This calculator says that at 50 mph, a 175 lb rider will burn 2.66 calories per second for 9 seconds, covering 200 meters.
I didn’t mean this as a Game Room thread, though, this was more about the body itself. Because who knows, maybe there is a non-sports activity or disorder that can cause the body to burn calories quickly too…
It might also wind up in IMHO. It’s hard finding facts when you get nothing but diet sites. Or calorie estimators for long periods of time at moderate levels.
Sorry, I was thinking of a Cecil column from looooong ago (which, of course, I can’t find right now) that said your body burns significant calories trying to stay cool which is why I mentioned Death Valley, although a marathon run was probably a poor example. I’ll see if I can find the column and if it contributes anything useful; don’t wait up.
It seems to me that the key is to get as much muscle mass as possible, working at its maximum power. Swimmers use their whole bodies, whereas bicyclists mostly use only their legs, but then again, a bicyclist’s legs will be significantly larger than a swimmer’s.
There might be some sort of stationary exercise machine that combines bicycle pedals with something for the arms to do, but I doubt that it’s any sort of organized sport.
Cycling takes advantage of technology and human physiology to achieve pretty efficient movement through a very thin medium (air) over a likewise smooth traveling surface. Swimming is quite different, using no machines and moving a body not adapted for aquatic locomotion through a comparatively very dense medium (water); it would be comparatively very inefficient. I’d say any increase in mass of an average cyclers legs working at max power would be more than offset by the other 95% of their muscles working way below that of a swimmer.
Where’s the love for the cross-country skiers?
I would think sprinting would burn calories at the fastest rate per second.
This is about calories per second. No endurance event can support the rate of a sprint event.
Total calories is a different question.
If the question is solely about calories per second, I’d wager some bucks that sprinting beats swimming.
This was my thoughts as well. Just from personal experience I have found that hiking in hills builds up my leg muscles and I can burn a lot of calories just hiking 2 days a week. High calorie consumption requires some muscle mass.
Swimming engages the most muscle mass but not the most muscle mass at the highest power/intensity. The lower body, which has much more muscle mass than the upper body, is much more intensely engaged in sprinting than in swimming. It more than offsets the lack of comparable upper body engagement.
The cyclist in an Olympic sprint event is using legs, glutes, all the core muscles, and arms at maximum effort for the time qualification and in the race’s final burst. Sprint cyclists are a different breed from the top road cyclists. There are road racers who specialize in sprints but their physical makeup (big powerful legs) is a drawback in long mountain climbs where the ectomorphs take over.
Here’s some sprint cyclist’s legs. Can I Skip Leg Day To Bicycle? - SmoothieGains
Mark Cavendish is a successful track cyclist and a multi-stage winner on the road race tours (France, Spain, Italy, …) but he’s never been a threat in the overall classification due to hills/gravity.
It seems I was right. Sprinting is king when it comes to calories burned/second.
ETA: It’s not the best cite in the world, I’ll admit that.
I agree with the posts about the endurance-type sports like X-country skiing and marathons not being in the hunt. The question is max calories per second, not over a long period of time like an hour. That seems to me to immediately narrow it down to sprinting / burst sports.
With no basis other than thinking about maximum muscles engaged at once, my vote would be for rowing.
I’ve never rowed, but t seems to me that many muscle groups including arms & shoulders, back, hips, legs are all working at once.
Rowing uses the upper body at near maximum intensity but does not use lower body that way. An exercise that is going to burn the most calories is going to include the largest muscles in the body working at near maximum intensity. Rowing is out.