I have a question about calories burnt on treadmill...plz gu

spicygal123

I noticed that the amount of calories burnt as shown on the treadmill in gym (by walking at 4.0 mph) is almost double the amount as compared to the calories shown on MFP (again walking at 4.0 mph)

So, I was confused as to which one would be the right one to consider?

I dont have a Heart rate monitor...so was wondering if others who have a HRM or been in similar situation can give me an idea?

thanks in advance!

iamdesiderata

I would trust the treadmill more, because it takes your age and weight into consideration, and if you're holding onto the HRM sensors on the treadmill or have a HRM on, that also makes the reading just that much more accurate.

MFP gives you an average, so when entering exercise time and calories into MFP, it's always better to customize instead of using MFP's estimate.

Your welcome!

Squash97

When I am walking at 3.5 on the treadmill at a 1.0 incline, my heartrate monitor is a little less, but it's pretty close. When I start jogging at 5.3 miles/hr at a 1.0 incline, I end up way over on myt HR monitor (after 20 minutes of jogging it is a 50 calorie difference which is a lot to me) compared to the treadmill. I would enter in the treadmill number because it's probably more accurate than MFP. Hope this helps!

dcorrea78

It's important to remember that all machines/monitors/websites merely estimate your caloric burn. The only way to truly know how many calories your body burns is to undergo testing that measures the amount of oxygen your body consumes. When I was getting certified as a personal trainer, one thing we learned was that many cardio machines would estimate on the higher side to boost customer confidence.

eannes

I use a HR monitor at the gym and find the cardio equipment consistently shows a higher calorie burn---probably an average of 30% higher. I think that is one of the reasons why people don't understand why they aren't losing weight when they seem to be working out so hard. It's really unfair!

Azdak

I noticed that the amount of calories burnt as shown on the treadmill in gym (by walking at 4.0 mph) is almost double the amount as compared to the calories shown on MFP (again walking at 4.0 mph)

So, I was confused as to which one would be the right one to consider?

I dont have a Heart rate monitor...so was wondering if others who have a HRM or been in similar situation can give me an idea?

thanks in advance!

This one is easy--multiply your weight (in kg) by 4. That's your calories burned per hour. Divide that number by 60 to get cals per minute.

This works a) if you are walking 4 mph on level ground and b) do NOT hold on to the handrails

bandchick

I have been there. I don't take the treadmill calories. I invested in a polar f 6 watch that has a band to put around your waist to get your constant heart rate. Its a bit pricey but you can fund it cheaper on eBay. This watch records your workouts and will take in account your age weight and height. Treadmills don't do constant heart rate. This makes you work harder to get to your target heart rate.

LotusF1ower

I noticed that the amount of calories burnt as shown on the treadmill in gym (by walking at 4.0 mph) is almost double the amount as compared to the calories shown on MFP (again walking at 4.0 mph)

So, I was confused as to which one would be the right one to consider?

I dont have a Heart rate monitor...so was wondering if others who have a HRM or been in similar situation can give me an idea?

thanks in advance!

This one is easy--multiply your weight (in kg) by 4. That's your calories burned per hour. Divide that number by 60 to get cals per minute.

This works a) if you are walking 4 mph on level ground and b) do NOT hold on to the handrails

Definitely correct formula by Azdak, that is the exact amount I burn when walking at 4mph :drinker: