number crunchers - how accurate is ths treamill calculator?

CarvedTones

https://42.195km.net/e/treadsim/

The numbers seem high to me. I did an hour of 4.7 mph on a 7.5 degree gradient. The machine told me around 600. I entered it as 400. That calculator puts it close to 800. I am 5' 7.5" and weigh 155. My HR stayed ~150.

LivingtheLeanDream

It does seem high, calculators are just calculators, if you use the tredmill alot and you keep data of your weight trends you should have a better idea of what the burn actually is for you.

I use a stationary bike, it over inflates the burn for me big time because it doesn't know my stats, MFP's calculation is low so I use that one knowing that I am burning at least that much and I know that to be true because of how my weight trend is.

Riff1970

Yep. That seems kind of high. I would guess I would burn 200-300 calories at that speed and incline.

I’d rather estimate low if I’m trying to cut weight.

cmriverside

I've posted this to your similar questions in the past...

Pick a number - say your 400 calories - and use it consistently for a few months. That's what I did. For the record, I'm 140-145, female, in my 60s, 5'7"-5'8" and I use 300 per hour of moderate exercise. I started using that flat number many years ago and it works for me. Calculators (MFP, an HRM, and others) were all around that number, some higher and some lower, and I got tired of messing with it. I know my exertion levels and how close I like to be to exertion and it's usually about the same for classes, paddling, or walking the big hills around here.

Just pick a number. You're close with that 400. Stick with it and make your life easier.

CarvedTones

cmriverside wrote: »

I've posted this to your similar questions in the past...

Pick a number - say your 400 calories - and use it consistently for a few months. That's what I did. For the record, I'm 140-145, female, in my 60s, 5'7"-5'8" and I use 300 per hour of moderate exercise. I started using that flat number many years ago and it works for me. Calculators (MFP, an HRM, and others) were all around that number, some higher and some lower, and I got tired of messing with it. I know my exertion levels and how close I like to be to exertion and it's usually about the same for classes, paddling, or walking the big hills around here.

Just pick a number. You're close with that 400. Stick with it and make your life easier.

The trouble with that approach is the assumption that I will always do the same speed and incline for the same time on the same machine and not complicate things with circuit training where I may change the amount of weight I use on different machines or with that friction pulley rope on the 360 that I pull on until my arms fall off, which takes a varying amount of time (hopefully it is going to steadily increase). The reality is that I do all those things and can't get meaningful results using a trend over time.

AnvilHead

CarvedTones wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

I've posted this to your similar questions in the past...

Pick a number - say your 400 calories - and use it consistently for a few months. That's what I did. For the record, I'm 140-145, female, in my 60s, 5'7"-5'8" and I use 300 per hour of moderate exercise. I started using that flat number many years ago and it works for me. Calculators (MFP, an HRM, and others) were all around that number, some higher and some lower, and I got tired of messing with it. I know my exertion levels and how close I like to be to exertion and it's usually about the same for classes, paddling, or walking the big hills around here.

Just pick a number. You're close with that 400. Stick with it and make your life easier.

The trouble with that approach is the assumption that I will always do the same speed and incline for the same time on the same machine and not complicate things with circuit training where I may change the amount of weight I use on different machines or with that friction pulley rope on the 360 that I pull on until my arms fall off, which takes a varying amount of time (hopefully it is going to steadily increase). The reality is that I do all those things and can't get meaningful results using a trend over time.

Unless you're hooked up to a metabolic cart while working out, the calorie burns will always be nothing more than estimates no matter which method you use.

Cassandraw3

Typical calculation for calories burned per mile is distance x 0.63 x weight. So for this, going 4.7 miles x 0.63 x 155 = 458 calories. Adding in the slope, you were at 7.5% incline. Incline adds 10 calories per mile per percentage from what I found (google, not experience) so that would be 10*4.7*7.5, which adds an additional 352 calories. That would put the total calorie burned at 810. Now, I am not sure how accurate the second portion of the calculator is (the incline portion). But, from personal experience, the formula I used for flat distance has been fairly accurate.

cmriverside

CarvedTones wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

I've posted this to your similar questions in the past...

Pick a number - say your 400 calories - and use it consistently for a few months. That's what I did. For the record, I'm 140-145, female, in my 60s, 5'7"-5'8" and I use 300 per hour of moderate exercise. I started using that flat number many years ago and it works for me. Calculators (MFP, an HRM, and others) were all around that number, some higher and some lower, and I got tired of messing with it. I know my exertion levels and how close I like to be to exertion and it's usually about the same for classes, paddling, or walking the big hills around here.

Just pick a number. You're close with that 400. Stick with it and make your life easier.

The trouble with that approach is the assumption that I will always do the same speed and incline for the same time on the same machine and not complicate things with circuit training where I may change the amount of weight I use on different machines or with that friction pulley rope on the 360 that I pull on until my arms fall off, which takes a varying amount of time (hopefully it is going to steadily increase). The reality is that I do all those things and can't get meaningful results using a trend over time.

Exactly. That just illustrates my point.

Use a flat number BECAUSE you'll never know exactly.

Guess what else? You (and I) make a minimum of 150 calories per day errors in our food logging. I eat 90% of my meals prepared from scratch by me. I use a digital food scale and log everything. I still acknowledge that I make errors - sometimes really big ones.

I'm saying that the anxiety you create around *trying* to get good numbers isn't worth it. Just do your exercise - whatever it is - pick a number and relax.

maureenkhilde

cmriverside wrote: »

I've posted this to your similar questions in the past...

Pick a number - say your 400 calories - and use it consistently for a few months. That's what I did. For the record, I'm 140-145, female, in my 60s, 5'7"-5'8" and I use 300 per hour of moderate exercise. I started using that flat number many years ago and it works for me. Calculators (MFP, an HRM, and others) were all around that number, some higher and some lower, and I got tired of messing with it. I know my exertion levels and how close I like to be to exertion and it's usually about the same for classes, paddling, or walking the big hills around here.

Just pick a number. You're close with that 400. Stick with it and make your life easier.

This makes total sense to me. I have increased my amount of exercise lately to 45min each time. But trying to figure out a truer amount of calories burned has been hard. MFP numbers seem to be way too high. And my machine at home seem to be off as well. But I can follow the reasoning above. I weigh more so I will adjust up a bit, until I lose some more of the flab. Unlike the OP, I am not doing a circuit of machines at this point. I have been just trying to figure out a more reliable accurate number overall. Thanks for this info. This is a perfect reason why I read so many posts, learn new stuff every day.

cmriverside

maureenkhilde wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

I've posted this to your similar questions in the past...

Pick a number - say your 400 calories - and use it consistently for a few months. That's what I did. For the record, I'm 140-145, female, in my 60s, 5'7"-5'8" and I use 300 per hour of moderate exercise. I started using that flat number many years ago and it works for me. Calculators (MFP, an HRM, and others) were all around that number, some higher and some lower, and I got tired of messing with it. I know my exertion levels and how close I like to be to exertion and it's usually about the same for classes, paddling, or walking the big hills around here.

Just pick a number. You're close with that 400. Stick with it and make your life easier.

This makes total sense to me. I have increased my amount of exercise lately to 45min each time. But trying to figure out a truer amount of calories burned has been hard. MFP numbers seem to be way too high. And my machine at home seem to be off as well. But I can follow the reasoning above. I weigh more so I will adjust up a bit, until I lose some more of the flab. Unlike the OP, I am not doing a circuit of machines at this point. I have been just trying to figure out a more reliable accurate number overall. Thanks for this info. This is a perfect reason why I read so many posts, learn new stuff every day.

Yay. And it's not the only data point, AND it is the one with the least amount of 100% accuracy. I mean, you're logging food (presumably) and weighing yourself on the scale, right? So this one is nebulous. I just tried to get somewhere close to the ballpark and if I use it consistently, it works alongside the other data. It still motivates me to get out there and exercise.

I've been at this for over a decade. I could just used TDEE at this point, I know my calorie needs. I use exercise cals as motivation. Nothing more.

CarvedTones

cmriverside wrote: »

CarvedTones wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

I've posted this to your similar questions in the past...

Pick a number - say your 400 calories - and use it consistently for a few months. That's what I did. For the record, I'm 140-145, female, in my 60s, 5'7"-5'8" and I use 300 per hour of moderate exercise. I started using that flat number many years ago and it works for me. Calculators (MFP, an HRM, and others) were all around that number, some higher and some lower, and I got tired of messing with it. I know my exertion levels and how close I like to be to exertion and it's usually about the same for classes, paddling, or walking the big hills around here.

Just pick a number. You're close with that 400. Stick with it and make your life easier.

The trouble with that approach is the assumption that I will always do the same speed and incline for the same time on the same machine and not complicate things with circuit training where I may change the amount of weight I use on different machines or with that friction pulley rope on the 360 that I pull on until my arms fall off, which takes a varying amount of time (hopefully it is going to steadily increase). The reality is that I do all those things and can't get meaningful results using a trend over time.

Exactly. That just illustrates my point.

Use a flat number BECAUSE you'll never know exactly.

Guess what else? You (and I) make a minimum of 150 calories per day errors in our food logging. I eat 90% of my meals prepared from scratch by me. I use a digital food scale and log everything. I still acknowledge that I make errors - sometimes really big ones.

I'm saying that the anxiety you create around *trying* to get good numbers isn't worth it. Just do your exercise - whatever it is - pick a number and relax.

You are dead on about the anxiety. I am now at 7 months at or below goal and I have not maintained my target weight after a loss for more than a month or two in decades and my target were never this aggressive. Once in the last 30 years or so I had a low spike down to about 15 pounds heavier than I am now, but really only got down to about 20 pounds heavier. I have kept it pretty stable or at least only making small moves up and down with range, but I am still worried bout slipping back into old habits. I have gotten a little sloppy with logging food, often guessing portions so my concern over getting exercise just right is to help minimize how far off I am. But I over think and get a little paranoid about it sometimes.

cmriverside

Well and I think we all want our calorie burns to mean something, to be able to eat more food etc.

It just isn't as variable as you may think, per hour.

Close enough is good enough, truly. FWIW, that's all we have when it comes to Exercise cals.

jjpptt2

600 seems reasonable to me.

4.7mph for an hour = 4.7 miles = 450-500 cals. Add in the gradient... 600 would be good enough for me.


But then again, I probably only know half as much as I think I know, and I don't think I know very much, so...