Tracking calories burnt on treadmill

thewindandthework

Hi everyone! One of my goals is to run a 5k. I have a long way to go, but I'm building up and I'm proud of my progress.

The problem is that I don't know how to track my calories burnt when I use a treadmill. Obviously that doesn't affect my progression toward my running goal, but I would like to know what I'm burning so I can log it in MFP for my weight loss goal. For now I've just not been tracking my calories burnt on the treadmill at all, but I don't like that as a longer-term solution.

I don't trust the display on the treadmill itself--it asks my weight but nothing else about me, so I can't imagine it would be accurate.

What's the best way to know how many calories I'm burning with my treadmill walking and running?

I get the impression that a heart rate monitor might be the way to go. If that's right, do you have a recommendation? What should I look for when choosing one? I've tried Googling it, but frankly I get overwhelmed with all the information and advertisements.

Thanks for your advice!

NorthCascades

Walking calories = your body weight in pounds * 1/3
Running calories = your body weight in pounds * 2/3

Your heart rate doesn't say how many calories you've burned, it says how your body reacted to the combination of exercise plus hydration plus your emotional state and other factors.

thewindandthework

NorthCascades wrote: »

Walking calories = your body weight in pounds * 1/3
Running calories = your body weight in pounds * 2/3

Interesting! How do time/distance work in there?

Is it (bodyweight/3)=kcal burnt per mile? hour? running time of an average Barbra Streisand album?

EDIT: If it really is just weight, then is the 'kcal burnt' display on my treadmill more accurate than I expect?

mcraw75

Add a cardiovascular exercise in MFP. There are several MPH options to choose from. Just search for walking and choose the MPH closest to what you walked. If you ran, choose running and the MPH. Then add the minutes you did the exercise.

jwills618

I'd recommend a HR Monitor! I have a FitBit Blaze and really like it. I also have a chest strap HRM through my gym and have worn both during workouts to compare and the HR being tracked are consistently almost exactly the same!

NorthCascades

thewindandthework wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

Walking calories = your body weight in pounds * 1/3
Running calories = your body weight in pounds * 2/3

Interesting! How do time/distance work in there?

Is it (bodyweight/3)=kcal burnt per mile? hour? running time of an average Barbra Streisand album?

EDIT: If it really is just weight, then is the 'kcal burnt' display on my treadmill more accurate than I expect?

Sorry, that should have been per mile.

It takes a certain amount of energy to move a specific mass (weight) a particular distance. Running takes twice as much energy as walking because you're jumping from foot to foot instead of just shifting your weight forward. If you go at a slower pace, you'll burn the calories more slowly but you'll walk or run for longer so it evens out, you've still done the same amount of physical work.

This isn't exact but it's close enough and to do better you need scientific instruments to measure how much oxygen you're breathing in and how much carbon dioxide you're breathing out.

need2belean

thewindandthework wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

Walking calories = your body weight in pounds * 1/3
Running calories = your body weight in pounds * 2/3

Interesting! How do time/distance work in there?

Is it (bodyweight/3)=kcal burnt per mile? hour? running time of an average Barbra Streisand album?

EDIT: If it really is just weight, then is the 'kcal burnt' display on my treadmill more accurate than I expect?

I recommend a chest strap heart rate monitor. They're more accurate with the heart rate than wrist strap ones but what heart rate monitor you get entirely depends on what you need (waterproof, gps, steps counted etc).

thewindandthework

NorthCascades wrote: »

Sorry, that should have been per mile.

Thanks for the clarification. That's very helpful info!

thewindandthework

What about activity trackers?

I've been eyeing the Misfit Ray, which says it tracks calories, steps, distance, and sleep. Possibly worthwhile? Useless?

MeanderingMammal

thewindandthework wrote: »

What about activity trackers?

I wouldn't bother. NorthCascades has given you the answer. HRMs and fitness trackers might give you a different answer but what he's said is meaningful enough for your needs.

Fwiw I'm an ultrarunner. I never bother with HR for working out my calories. Always distance.

NorthCascades

need2belean wrote: »

thewindandthework wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

Walking calories = your body weight in pounds * 1/3
Running calories = your body weight in pounds * 2/3

Interesting! How do time/distance work in there?

Is it (bodyweight/3)=kcal burnt per mile? hour? running time of an average Barbra Streisand album?

EDIT: If it really is just weight, then is the 'kcal burnt' display on my treadmill more accurate than I expect?

I recommend a chest strap heart rate monitor. They're more accurate with the heart rate than wrist strap ones but what heart rate monitor you get entirely depends on what you need (waterproof, gps, steps counted etc).

All that will tell her is her pulse rate. That's useful for fitness purposes, but she wants to know how many calories she's burned, and an HRM won't do much better than a roll of the dice for that.

broseidonkingofbrocean

Don't trust what the treadmill says or what this site tells you. What I would do is purchase a heart rate monitor possibly with a calorie tracker built in(will cost more). However you can buy a cheap one that doesn't track your calories.. you'll just have to do math to figure out how many you've burnt. Do a little googlefu and it should give you info on it.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

Which I agree with heart rate monitors are the most accurate way of tracking calories burned.

thewindandthework

Thanks for your advice, everyone! I think for now I'm going to do the math myself based on distance, and compare that to the display on the treadmill. If it's pretty close I'll just go by the display.

I'm still thinking about getting an activity tracker, but it's nice knowing that a heart rate monitor isn't necessary for my needs.

Other opinions are still welcome!

TavistockToad

I'm a runner so I love my garmin, but I've found that in terms of calorie burns its pretty close to the calculation mentioned above

ruqayyahsmum

Sorry just asking cos i cant work it out

So for walking is it your body weight x a third of your body weight per mile?

Jruzer

From what I understand, treadmill exercises are some of the best characterized calorie burns.

Check out this link, and the references at the end.

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.shtml

ruqayyahsmum

Or are we talking body weight x 0.33 per mile?

Jruzer

ruqayyahsmum wrote: »

Or are we talking body weight x 0.33 per mile?

Yes, this one. So if you weigh 150 pounds, you burn 50 calories per mile. Personally I think this is a little low, but not by much. It's a decent rule of thumb.

spiriteagle99

I use the mfp numbers and they work for me. I don't have to do any math that way, the program does it. I run at about 6 mph. So if I run 5 miles, it's 50 minutes. If I'm faster or doing elevation I'll burn a bit more, but the average works well.

MelanieCN77

The math is about right. I burn about 100 cals according to my Apple Watch if I run an 11-12 minute mile and I weigh 135.

Azdak

All you need is weight. The treadmill is as accurate as anything else. If you are running, it will likely overestimate by 15%-20%. That's as accurate as you can get.