Treadmill Calculator
jsauer901
Posts: 2 Member
Anyone found a good treadmill calorie burn calculator on line? I am not really trusting the one on the actual machine.
Thoughts?
Thanks
Jaysour
Thoughts?
Thanks
Jaysour
1
Replies
-
Running: body weight (in pounds) X 0.63 X miles
Walking: body weight (in pounds) X 0.31 X miles9 -
@DX2JX2 is giving the standard formulas.
I think the (gym quality) treadmill numbers are pretty good so long as you enter your weight accurately (including clothing and anything else you are carrying). Their formulas include the effects of the incline as well.
All such calorie burn estimates have uncertainty. Most people estimate the uncertainty as +/-10%.
You can us a heart rate monitor to get a another estimate of calorie burn during sustained effort. My HRM (from Wahoo Fitness) gives numbers that are slightly higher than the treadmill numbers.
If you are intent on cutting weight, don't eat all of your exercise calories back!1 -
Today I found that after 30 minutes on the treadmill, the display showed 209.1 calories. Typing 30 minutes in the MFP Diary automatically gives me 342 calories. In the past I've always changed it to whatever the machine said, but I'm not sure why so big a difference, or which one is actually correct.0
-
They are usually pretty inaccurate. You could opt for a heart rate monitor with a calorie tracker, I prefer the ones with the chest strap. Since they're considered one of the most accurate ways to track it.
However if people don't want to use those... What I would do is not log the calories burned from a treadmill on myfitnesspal. Gauge it each week on your own. The good thing about it especially if you're using the same treadmill is that it will be consistently inaccurate. How that works for you? Say you're doing cardio 3 times a week and in my opinion the best way to track cardio is calories burned(if you're doing it for weigh loss). Compared to time or distance. So say you're burning 300 calories each cardio session, if its inline with your weekly weight loss goals continue to do so. If it is over or under adjust accordingly.4 -
Today I found that after 30 minutes on the treadmill, the display showed 209.1 calories. Typing 30 minutes in the MFP Diary automatically gives me 342 calories. In the past I've always changed it to whatever the machine said, but I'm not sure why so big a difference, or which one is actually correct.
Running? Walking? How far did you go in the 30 minutes?
You can use these formulae to sanity check the numbers:
Running: body weight (in pounds) X 0.63 X miles
Walking: body weight (in pounds) X 0.31 X miles0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »Today I found that after 30 minutes on the treadmill, the display showed 209.1 calories. Typing 30 minutes in the MFP Diary automatically gives me 342 calories. In the past I've always changed it to whatever the machine said, but I'm not sure why so big a difference, or which one is actually correct.
Running? Walking? How far did you go in the 30 minutes?
You can use these formulae to sanity check the numbers:
Running: body weight (in pounds) X 0.63 X miles
Walking: body weight (in pounds) X 0.31 X miles
Thanks. Now this gives me 84 calories using your formula: 170x0.31x1.593 = 84 calories burnt.
It is 228 reading from the treadmill screen, and 347 by simply entering the minutes in MFP.0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »Today I found that after 30 minutes on the treadmill, the display showed 209.1 calories. Typing 30 minutes in the MFP Diary automatically gives me 342 calories. In the past I've always changed it to whatever the machine said, but I'm not sure why so big a difference, or which one is actually correct.
Running? Walking? How far did you go in the 30 minutes?
You can use these formulae to sanity check the numbers:
Running: body weight (in pounds) X 0.63 X miles
Walking: body weight (in pounds) X 0.31 X miles
Thanks. Now this gives me 84 calories using your formula: 170x0.31x1.593 = 84 calories burnt.
It is 228 reading from the treadmill screen, and 347 by simply entering the minutes in MFP.
Again - were you walking or running?
I did a 2.4 mile run on the treadmill yesterday. My Garmin 935 (paired to a Scosche Rhythm+ HRM strap) said it was 360 calories, the formula above says it was 303 calories. MFP's exercise entry says it was 363 calories. I don't remember what the treadmill display said, I usually don't pay much attention to it - it was somewhere in the 300s.
I entered my weight on the treadmill. MFP's diary entry knows my age and weight. My Garmin knows my weight, age, estimated VO2max, estimated MaxHR and estimated LTHR.0 -
I really wouldn't trust the machine. Mine tells me over 1000+ calories for an hour running 6 mph. The real number is closer to 500.0
-
BrianSharpe wrote: »Today I found that after 30 minutes on the treadmill, the display showed 209.1 calories. Typing 30 minutes in the MFP Diary automatically gives me 342 calories. In the past I've always changed it to whatever the machine said, but I'm not sure why so big a difference, or which one is actually correct.
Running? Walking? How far did you go in the 30 minutes?
You can use these formulae to sanity check the numbers:
Running: body weight (in pounds) X 0.63 X miles
Walking: body weight (in pounds) X 0.31 X miles
Thanks. Now this gives me 84 calories using your formula: 170x0.31x1.593 = 84 calories burnt.
It is 228 reading from the treadmill screen, and 347 by simply entering the minutes in MFP.
I had this issue too.
The formula says I burned 49 calories from a 1 mile walk. (159 x 0.31 x 1)
Treadmill said closer to 300, MFP said something different. I usually just knock 75-100 calories off whatever the machines say and go with that.
My 1 mile walk most definitely was not a 49 calorie burn..... Especially since I walk most of it at the highest incline and a slow/moderate (2.1-2.8 speed)...
I don't trust MFP or the machine calculations to be exact or close to exact, though....
ETA: I wonder if there should be a "1" in the calculation.... instead of 0.31, it should be 1.31. That number seems more accurate, and gives me a 208 calorie burn for the 1 mile walk.0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »Today I found that after 30 minutes on the treadmill, the display showed 209.1 calories. Typing 30 minutes in the MFP Diary automatically gives me 342 calories. In the past I've always changed it to whatever the machine said, but I'm not sure why so big a difference, or which one is actually correct.
Running? Walking? How far did you go in the 30 minutes?
You can use these formulae to sanity check the numbers:
Running: body weight (in pounds) X 0.63 X miles
Walking: body weight (in pounds) X 0.31 X miles
Thanks. Now this gives me 84 calories using your formula: 170x0.31x1.593 = 84 calories burnt.
It is 228 reading from the treadmill screen, and 347 by simply entering the minutes in MFP.
I had this issue too.
The formula says I burned 49 calories from a 1 mile walk. (159 x 0.31 x 1)
Treadmill said closer to 300, MFP said something different. I usually just knock 75-100 calories off whatever the machines say and go with that.
My 1 mile walk most definitely was not a 49 calorie burn..... Especially since I walk most of it at the highest incline and a slow/moderate (2.1-2.8 speed)...
I don't trust MFP or the machine calculations to be exact or close to exact, though....
ETA: I wonder if there should be a "1" in the calculation.... instead of 0.31, it should be 1.31. That number seems more accurate, and gives me a 208 calorie burn for the 1 mile walk.
Walking isn't a very big calorie burner. Our bodies are quite efficient at walking.
The .31 is correct. Why would you think it should be 1.31? That would make it twice as big a calorie burn than running.1 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »Today I found that after 30 minutes on the treadmill, the display showed 209.1 calories. Typing 30 minutes in the MFP Diary automatically gives me 342 calories. In the past I've always changed it to whatever the machine said, but I'm not sure why so big a difference, or which one is actually correct.
Running? Walking? How far did you go in the 30 minutes?
You can use these formulae to sanity check the numbers:
Running: body weight (in pounds) X 0.63 X miles
Walking: body weight (in pounds) X 0.31 X miles
Thanks. Now this gives me 84 calories using your formula: 170x0.31x1.593 = 84 calories burnt.
It is 228 reading from the treadmill screen, and 347 by simply entering the minutes in MFP.
I had this issue too.
The formula says I burned 49 calories from a 1 mile walk. (159 x 0.31 x 1)
Treadmill said closer to 300, MFP said something different. I usually just knock 75-100 calories off whatever the machines say and go with that.
My 1 mile walk most definitely was not a 49 calorie burn..... Especially since I walk most of it at the highest incline and a slow/moderate (2.1-2.8 speed)...
I don't trust MFP or the machine calculations to be exact or close to exact, though....
ETA: I wonder if there should be a "1" in the calculation.... instead of 0.31, it should be 1.31. That number seems more accurate, and gives me a 208 calorie burn for the 1 mile walk.
Walking isn't a very big calorie burner. Our bodies are quite efficient at walking.
The .31 is correct. Why would you think it should be 1.31? That would make it twice as big a calorie burn than running.
The equation doesn't take into account the speed or incline of the walk. If you put the treadmill on the highest incline (the ones I used went to a 15 incline) and hike up, its going to be a higher calorie count than 49 calories, if you do this for a mile.1 -
This is why I never eat my exercise calories. It's just too undependable. I find that MFP does not adjust when you are walking on the treadmill and increase the incline. I may be doing 3.0 mph, but I am doing it at a 3-4, sometimes 5 % incline.4
-
elsie6hickman wrote: »This is why I never eat my exercise calories. It's just too undependable. I find that MFP does not adjust when you are walking on the treadmill and increase the incline. I may be doing 3.0 mph, but I am doing it at a 3-4, sometimes 5 % incline.
Thats why I estimate the calorie burn, and just knock off about 100 cals from what the machine tells me. Sometimes I eat them, sometimes I don't. Depends on how hungry I am. Haha1 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »Today I found that after 30 minutes on the treadmill, the display showed 209.1 calories. Typing 30 minutes in the MFP Diary automatically gives me 342 calories. In the past I've always changed it to whatever the machine said, but I'm not sure why so big a difference, or which one is actually correct.
Running? Walking? How far did you go in the 30 minutes?
You can use these formulae to sanity check the numbers:
Running: body weight (in pounds) X 0.63 X miles
Walking: body weight (in pounds) X 0.31 X miles
Thanks. Now this gives me 84 calories using your formula: 170x0.31x1.593 = 84 calories burnt.
It is 228 reading from the treadmill screen, and 347 by simply entering the minutes in MFP.
Again - were you walking or running?
I did a 2.4 mile run on the treadmill yesterday. My Garmin 935 (paired to a Scosche Rhythm+ HRM strap) said it was 360 calories, the formula above says it was 303 calories. MFP's exercise entry says it was 363 calories. I don't remember what the treadmill display said, I usually don't pay much attention to it - it was somewhere in the 300s.
I entered my weight on the treadmill. MFP's diary entry knows my age and weight. My Garmin knows my weight, age, estimated VO2max, estimated MaxHR and estimated LTHR.
I was "walking". Maximum speed 3.5mph doing a Jillian Michaels iFit 30 minute treadmill routine. The incline and the speed both vary a lot during the exercise.0 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »Today I found that after 30 minutes on the treadmill, the display showed 209.1 calories. Typing 30 minutes in the MFP Diary automatically gives me 342 calories. In the past I've always changed it to whatever the machine said, but I'm not sure why so big a difference, or which one is actually correct.
Running? Walking? How far did you go in the 30 minutes?
You can use these formulae to sanity check the numbers:
Running: body weight (in pounds) X 0.63 X miles
Walking: body weight (in pounds) X 0.31 X miles
Thanks. Now this gives me 84 calories using your formula: 170x0.31x1.593 = 84 calories burnt.
It is 228 reading from the treadmill screen, and 347 by simply entering the minutes in MFP.
I had this issue too.
The formula says I burned 49 calories from a 1 mile walk. (159 x 0.31 x 1)
Treadmill said closer to 300, MFP said something different. I usually just knock 75-100 calories off whatever the machines say and go with that.
My 1 mile walk most definitely was not a 49 calorie burn..... Especially since I walk most of it at the highest incline and a slow/moderate (2.1-2.8 speed)...
I don't trust MFP or the machine calculations to be exact or close to exact, though....
ETA: I wonder if there should be a "1" in the calculation.... instead of 0.31, it should be 1.31. That number seems more accurate, and gives me a 208 calorie burn for the 1 mile walk.
Walking isn't a very big calorie burner. Our bodies are quite efficient at walking.
The .31 is correct. Why would you think it should be 1.31? That would make it twice as big a calorie burn than running.
The equation doesn't take into account the speed or incline of the walk. If you put the treadmill on the highest incline (the ones I used went to a 15 incline) and hike up, its going to be a higher calorie count than 49 calories, if you do this for a mile.
Speed doesn't matter much to calorie burns for walking or running. The only condition is that if your walking speed is consistently above 4 or 4.5 mph, then the burn is more like running.
For those walkers who claim that they regularly walk above 4mph. I would track yourself for a bit before adjusting your burns upwards. It's actually quite unusual to walk this fast on average and is pretty hard to do. Those speeds tend to be more in the wheelhouse of race-walkers.
Incline does make a difference to calorie burn and is not factored into the 0.31 and 0.63 formulas.
Keep in mind that the 0.31 and 0.63 formulas seem low because they provide only the INCREMENTAL calorie burn provided by the activity. Many other sources seem higher because they also include the calories you would have burned anyway. That said, while walking is great for overall fitness it's not the biggest calorie burner as a matter of course. You can also make an argument that running isn't that efficient either in terms of difficulty vs. burn. Basically, this is the reason that the saying 'weight loss happens in the kitchen' exists.4 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »Today I found that after 30 minutes on the treadmill, the display showed 209.1 calories. Typing 30 minutes in the MFP Diary automatically gives me 342 calories. In the past I've always changed it to whatever the machine said, but I'm not sure why so big a difference, or which one is actually correct.
Running? Walking? How far did you go in the 30 minutes?
You can use these formulae to sanity check the numbers:
Running: body weight (in pounds) X 0.63 X miles
Walking: body weight (in pounds) X 0.31 X miles
Thanks. Now this gives me 84 calories using your formula: 170x0.31x1.593 = 84 calories burnt.
It is 228 reading from the treadmill screen, and 347 by simply entering the minutes in MFP.
I had this issue too.
The formula says I burned 49 calories from a 1 mile walk. (159 x 0.31 x 1)
Treadmill said closer to 300, MFP said something different. I usually just knock 75-100 calories off whatever the machines say and go with that.
My 1 mile walk most definitely was not a 49 calorie burn..... Especially since I walk most of it at the highest incline and a slow/moderate (2.1-2.8 speed)...
I don't trust MFP or the machine calculations to be exact or close to exact, though....
ETA: I wonder if there should be a "1" in the calculation.... instead of 0.31, it should be 1.31. That number seems more accurate, and gives me a 208 calorie burn for the 1 mile walk.
Walking isn't a very big calorie burner. Our bodies are quite efficient at walking.
The .31 is correct. Why would you think it should be 1.31? That would make it twice as big a calorie burn than running.
The equation doesn't take into account the speed or incline of the walk. If you put the treadmill on the highest incline (the ones I used went to a 15 incline) and hike up, its going to be a higher calorie count than 49 calories, if you do this for a mile.
Speed doesn't matter much to calorie burns for walking or running. The only condition is that if your walking speed is consistently above 4 or 4.5 mph, then the burn is more like running.
For those walkers who claim that they regularly walk above 4mph. I would track yourself for a bit before adjusting your burns upwards. It's actually quite unusual to walk this fast on average and is pretty hard to do. Those speeds tend to be more in the wheelhouse of race-walkers.
Incline does make a difference to calorie burn and is not factored into the 0.31 and 0.63 formulas.
Keep in mind that the 0.31 and 0.63 formulas seem low because they provide only the INCREMENTAL calorie burn provided by the activity. Many other sources seem higher because they also include the calories you would have burned anyway. That said, while walking is great for overall fitness it's not the biggest calorie burner as a matter of course. You can also make an argument that running isn't that efficient either in terms of difficulty vs. burn. Basically, this is the reason that the saying 'weight loss happens in the kitchen' exists.
It definitely does happen in the kitchen. I dropped 50 lbs, just from cutting down calories. No exercise, no "clean eating", literally just counting calories.
I just know that when I walk up a steep incline for a mile, I am not burning only 49 calories. I also know I am not burning all the calories the machine says. It's all an estimate, anyway. I just try to make an "educated guess" based on multiple different sources, not just MFP and the treadmill. And since I ALWAYS push the incline to the highest stage, I know that formula would never personally work for me. I have never gone more than a 4.0 for a walk because at that point I am almost at a jog. I would have to have some very long legs to pull off a walk at anything higher than 4.0. For fast walking, I stick to about 3.6. But for the steep incline, I have never gone past 2.8. At that incline (and, no I don't hold onto the machine....) my heart is racing at just a 2.2 speed...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions