burning calories...who do I believe

jodigrengs

We had to purchase another treadmill in Dec. 2014, Nordictrack. I walk for 45 minutes, 4.0, at 2% incline. Nordictrack says I burned 496 calories. On myfitnesspal, walking 45 minutes, 4.0, with no incline, it says I only burned 267 calories. Does that little 2% incline makes that much of a difference? Or who is closer to really number?

cwolfman13

always be conservative.

i would personally be very skeptical of an almost 500 calorie burn in 45 minutes...I would go with the lower number.

jkwolly

cwolfman13 wrote: »

always be conservative.

i would personally be very skeptical of an almost 500 calorie burn in 45 minutes...I would go with the lower number.

This.

Also consider getting a HRM for a more accurate reading.

tflyswagg

I am having the same problem as far as going on the elliptical doing a HIIT workout for 45 mins and it saying I burned between 800-850 calories and the person who created the video says the same thing that you should be burning that amount. Which would mean you burn like 200+ calories each set. Why would these machines have monitors if they are not correct? I know if your sweating your getting a great cardio workout but its discouraging to not be able to track this information correctly! Someone suggest I get a heart monitor, maybe that is a good solution.

Mr_Knight

jodigrengs wrote: »

We had to purchase another treadmill in Dec. 2014, Nordictrack. I walk for 45 minutes, 4.0, at 2% incline. Nordictrack says I burned 496 calories. On myfitnesspal, walking 45 minutes, 4.0, with no incline, it says I only burned 267 calories. Does that little 2% incline makes that much of a difference? Or who is closer to really number?

A typical treadmill needs about 2% incline just to more closely mimic walking "for real".

The only way to burn 500 calories in 45 minutes of walking is to weigh about 500 pounds. Scale the burn down accordingly, based on your own weight.

EDIT: Do NOT use an HRM for walking burns, as it will massively over-estimate. G-d, that needs to be a sticky....

ibamosaserreinas

Incline does make a big difference. How much of a difference I am not sure.

Mr_Knight

tflyswagg wrote: »

I am having the same problem as far as going on the elliptical doing a HIIT workout for 45 mins and it saying I burned between 800-850 calories...

Even Lance eff-ing Armstrong hopped up on PEDs can't burn calories that fast.

Those numbers are a total fantasy - divide them by 3 and go from there.

khloesdad0124

take into considersation that a) MFP does not take into considersation your speed or distance that you did, just time and that b) some ellipticals or treadmills don't ask for your weight. If you want to you can simply google how many calories did I burn? When I do 10 minutes on the elliptical at 8.0 it'll say I burned only 88 calories. But yet MFP will say I burned 180 and the website I use says 299 (which is the equivalent of 15 minutes for MFP). The website I use does ask your weight, height and type of exercise and length.

riffraff2112

I never trust the readouts on any cardio machine. Online calculators can be a little better.

brianpperkins

tflyswagg wrote: »

I am having the same problem as far as going on the elliptical doing a HIIT workout for 45 mins and it saying I burned between 800-850 calories and the person who created the video says the same thing that you should be burning that amount. Which would mean you burn like 200+ calories each set. Why would these machines have monitors if they are not correct? I know if your sweating your getting a great cardio workout but its discouraging to not be able to track this information correctly! Someone suggest I get a heart monitor, maybe that is a good solution.

Sweating does not equal caloric burn.

corindeathawk

Mr_Knight has it right. Runtastic shows walking at that pace as 182 calories for me. YMWV based on weight, age, etc, but um, no, not seeing over 400 for it.

If you are trying to lose weight, you are better off under estimating in any case.

crystal8208

Underestimate burns and overestimate calories. That's safe. :-)

2snakeswoman

Since I'm keeping track at MFP, I use their estimates. Eventually I hope I can stop eating exercise calories back, but at this point (newbie), I want every single one of them (and more). Down appetite, down!

brandiuntz

The formula towards the end of this article will give you a better idea of what you actually burn for walking and running:

http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn

Jruzer

I'm late to the party but I'm a big fan of this calculator:
http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

Since I don't know your weight, I guesstimated at 150 lbs. Results for 4.0 MPH:
0% incline: 280 kcal
2% incline: 324 kcal

So the 2% incline adds about 15%. A 5% incline would add 35% and a 10% incline would add about 80%.

I sometimes use the treadmill at 15% for training for backpacking, and that more than doubles the burn of walking on a flat surface. However, it's hard to maintain the same speed at that slope!

jodigrengs

Thanks a bunch...that helps

Azdak

According to your numbers, you would have to weigh 282 pounds to achieve that calorie burn at that workload. So you can use that as a reference. If you don't hold on to the handrails, and you are using a name-brand commercial treadmill, the calorie numbers for walking should be relatively accurate (for running, they overestimate by about 15%). I can't speak for Nordic Track, other than to say it is no longer a serious fitness brand.

ahoier

this is why i personally, i'd log it as the average.....267+496=763......763 divided by 2...381.5 to give you a good average.......if you use a heart rate monitor.....you could add that number tooo as well and divide by 3......

Azdak

tflyswagg wrote: »

I am having the same problem as far as going on the elliptical doing a HIIT workout for 45 mins and it saying I burned between 800-850 calories and the person who created the video says the same thing that you should be burning that amount. Which would mean you burn like 200+ calories each set. Why would these machines have monitors if they are not correct? I know if your sweating your getting a great cardio workout but its discouraging to not be able to track this information correctly! Someone suggest I get a heart monitor, maybe that is a good solution.

You have to realize that equipment manufacturers are not making health monitoring equipment. The calorie displays are just another shiny object in many cases.

People also need to understand that estimating calories on exercise equipment is not simple--nor is it cheap. A company would have to conduct their own research to develop and validate machine-specific energy-prediction equations. To do it right is time-consuming and expensive. To the best of my knowledge, Life Fitness is the only company that has the resources and has even tried in the past--and I'm not sure if they even do it anymore.

The energy-prediction equations for walking and running are well-established. They are simple and can easily be programmed into a commercial treadmill. As long as you enter weight and don't use the handrails, the calorie readouts should be as reliable as anything, and more reliable than most sources and even HRMs. Even though treadmills may have different appearances, the movement is the same no matter which brand of treadmill.

Cross trainers are a completely different story. Every equipment manufacturer--life Fitness, Precor, Technogym, etc--has a completely different movement design for their elliptical/cross trainer. So the only way to get an accurate calorie burn is for each manufacturer to design and validate their own machine-specific algorithms. That doesn't happen, as I described above. I don't exactly how they do their calculations, but I think they base them on the walking/running formulas--which is why they overestimate so much.

amy8400

Jruzer is spot on.

I do a lot of interval training on the treadmill and incline has substantial impact on calories burned. My starting point is at 8% incline and 4.0 mph but when I crank it up to 12-15% incline, I can effectively increase my workout intensity 35% or more. If you want a more intense workout in a shorter amount of time, I highly recommend working at an incline as much as possible. I only use 0-2% incline for intervals of running. To me, walking at low-to-no incline doesn't provide an intense enough workout. In 30 minutes, I want to burn 300-350 calories.

amy8400

Forgot to add, that if you're going to do steeper inclines, wearing a pair of lifting gloves is really helpful so your hands have a good grip. I also throw a thick washcloth over the center bar so I have a little extra cushioning.

3dogsrunning

amy8400 wrote: »

Forgot to add, that if you're going to do steeper inclines, wearing a pair of lifting gloves is really helpful so your hands have a good grip. I also throw a thick washcloth over the center bar so I have a little extra cushioning.

Holding on reduces your calories burned.

Mikey_Irish

I like the heart monitor. Its accurate. And the info is displayed after syncing over at Garmin connect so I can easily keep track exactly whats going on and being burned.

amy8400

@3dogsrunning, yes it does but for safety reasons anything over 8% incline I use the center grip. I also get one heck of a tricep and bicep workout when walking 4-4.5 mph and holding on.