who to believe? treadmill or website?

dcglobalgirl

So, I just did 30 minutes on the treadmill. It said I was on a 7% incline and walking at 5 mph.

The treadmill said I burned 250 calories (without entering my weight, age, etc.)

This website http://www.mygraphite.com/free-tools/exercise-calorie-calculator

said I burned 467 calories if I was on a 6% incline.

So, who to believe?

And yes, I know I should get a fitbit to be really accurate but I just want an approximate number for now.

Mr_Knight

Net calories, roughly....

2.0 miles @ 150 pounds -> 90 calories.

Incline bonus of 50% -> 68 * 1.5 -> 135 calories.

dcglobalgirl

Net calories, roughly....

1.5 miles @ 150 pounds -> 90 calories.

Incline bonus of 50% -> 68 * 1.5 -> 135 calories.

yeah, that's not what I wanted to hear

Mr_Knight

I hear ya. It sucks. That's why I started running and cycling instead of walking - it takes a freakin' long walk to burn a big whack of calories

RoyBeck

Do you mean 5kph? I run at 5mph and couldn't walk that fast. First question.

Julzanne72

So, I just did 30 minutes on the treadmill. It said I was on a 7% incline and walking at 5 mph.

The treadmill said I burned 250 calories (without entering my weight, age, etc.)

This website http://www.mygraphite.com/free-tools/exercise-calorie-calculator

said I burned 467 calories if I was on a 6% incline.

So, who to believe?

And yes, I know I should get a fitbit to be really accurate but I just want an approximate number for now.

My suggestion would be a HRM.

lizsmith1976

467 for 30 minutes sounds really, really high... Even with the incline. I would have to be running 7mph + to even come anywhere near that.

I think 250 is probably just about correct for gross calories.

I also wanted to say, DANG. You "walk" at 5mph at a 7% incline? You are a FAST walker, and that will give you killer legs and glutes. That's great exercise

tapirfrog

I thought it was roughly 100 calories per mile whether you walked or ran.

Wenchiness

I've found that most machines giving you a calorie burn estimate, even inputting height and weight, they lie to you baby. Lie lie lie. Divide what the machine tells you in about half. If it's on a website or even mfp, divide by half again, but this time do it twice. Sucks!

RoyBeck

I thought it was roughly 100 calories per mile whether you walked or ran.

Me too but I don't think this is accurate on reflection.

lizsmith1976

The roughly 100 calories per mile is a good rule of thumb if you have no way of calculating, but the biggest trouble with that is the "net" effect.

For example, let's say you run 6 miles and it takes you 1 hour. That's 600 calories "gross". But, your body burns (if BMR is 2,400, let's say) 100 calories an hour breathing, moving blood, thinking, digesting, etc. HRMs would tell you 600, but 100 of that is ALREADY counted in what you can eat per day. So you have really only burned an "extra" 500 calories.

If you walk 6 miles in 2 hours, then that's about 600 calories gross. But your body would have burned 200 calories anyway, making the net number an "extra" 400 calories burned.

Also, every study I've ever seen shows that running a mile really does burn slightly more. A walked mile might be 85-95 cals for most people and a quickly ran mile might be 115-125 cals.

Francl27

Depends on your weight too. Both usually lie. Heck 5 mph is running for me, not walking, lol... so it also depends on your height and stride.

3.5 mph for one hour here with a 3% incline is about 200 calories at 150 lbs. I'm 5'5".

I'd get a HRM, or just eat back 75% or something.

dcglobalgirl

Do you mean 5kph? I run at 5mph and couldn't walk that fast. First question.

Could be. I live in Guatemala. Or the treadmill could just be wrong. But 5kph might make sense.

Nicolee_2014

Maybe go with 100 calories burned per 10 minutes? 300 calories. To be on the safe side (if you are going to eat these calories back log 250).

I don't burn nearly as much on the treadmill as I do the cross trainer or doing anything else. So yeah, both sound a bit high.

lilawolf

I'm about 150lbs and mfp would give me 261 cals for 30 minutes of walking at 5.0. You weigh 35 pounds more and were at an incline.

hillrunner.com says that the "equivalent pace" would be 6.7 mph which would give me 360 calories.

You get bonus points for extra weight, but then you have to subtract some because of over estimating. I would go with 300 calories if I were you IF YOU WERE NOT HOLDING ON. If you were holding on then I'd got with 200-250.

Mr_Knight

I'm about 150lbs and mfp would give me 261 cals for 30 minutes of walking at 5.0.

That is a massive over-estimate.

Mr_Knight

I thought it was roughly 100 calories per mile whether you walked or ran.

In terms of net calories (which matter for walking, because it burns slow), running is roughly double the calories/distance of walking.

lilawolf

I'm about 150lbs and mfp would give me 261 cals for 30 minutes of walking at 5.0. You weigh 35 pounds more and were at an incline.

hillrunner.com says that the "equivalent pace" would be 6.7 mph which would give me 360 calories.

You get bonus points for extra weight, but then you have to subtract some because of over estimating. I would go with 300 calories if I were you IF YOU WERE NOT HOLDING ON. If you were holding on then I'd got with 200-250.

Oops, just saw the Guatemala comment. Yep, those are kilometers per hour. Now you are down to ~150 if you weren't holding on.

lizsmith1976

Ahhh, I bet you were doing 5 kilometers per hour, which would be 3.1 miles per hour, and a very reasonable walking pace if at that incline. Guatemala has the road signs in KM, not miles, right? So it is likely that machines are measured that way.

Then the 250 seems high for 30 minutes.

billsica

Whatever one is lower.

Nicolee_2014

Some people can walk at 8mph but it would be a pretty fast stride...I'm guessing she means 5kph