question about treadmill
ktekc
Posts: 879 Member
I just started on my journey to get healthier a week or so ago and I have a question about my calories burned on my treadmill. I am a 36 yr old female and 4'11" tall and 225 lbs. I have worked my way up to 45 min everyday at 3.1 mph. All the calculators i can find all say that 2.8-3.1 mph is a "level, moderate pace". For me its practically a jog and my HR will be in the 145-155 range. Am i burning more than they say because its a harder pace for me to keep up? Or am i nuts? I can do 3.4 mph but can only sustain it for a minute or two because it is a full jog for me. Ive got some short little stubbs for legs. lol
0
Replies
-
At that pace you probably are burning a bit less than they state.
Go with what your worn HRM reads, and not the machine.
Another option, is to use something of a constant for burn, 100 calories per mile is a fairly commonly used estimate. So in 45 minutes you're probably going about 2.25 miles, meaning 225 calories.0 -
Treadmill calculators are pretty good as it is based on amount of work performed (moving a your known mass for a known distance over a known amount of time) As long as you enter age, gender, and weight, the treadmil will probably be a better estimate than an HRM, as HRMs use HR as an estimator of work performed, whereas the treadmill calculates actual work done. The calculations used on treadmills are pretty standard and widely accepted as accurate (not exact, but better than an HRM that you don't change max HR or V02Max inputs)0
-
No. If you were the same weight and super fit you would burn the same number of calories. Calories are a unit of energy and not a unit of effort! Unfortunately feeling harder is nothing to do with calories burned.Am I burning more than they say because its a harder pace for me to keep up?
If you had a twin the same weight but with a very low HR you would still burning the same calories at the same speed.0 -
No. If you were the same weight and super fit you would burn the same number of calories. Calories are a unit of energy and not a unit of effort! Unfortunately feeling harder is nothing to do with calories burned.Am I burning more than they say because its a harder pace for me to keep up?
If you had a twin the same weight but with a very low HR you would still burning the same calories at the same speed.
This doesn't make sense to me. I thought as you became more fit, your body becomes more efficient and you burn less? If what you say is true, what is the point of HR monitors?0 -
http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/the-truth-about-heart-rate-and-exercise?page=2
"Working out at about 60% to 75% of your maximum heart rate (the so-called "fat-burning zone") burns fewer calories than working out at 75% to 85% of your maximum heart rate (the so-called "aerobic" or "cardio" zone). "0 -
No. If you were the same weight and super fit you would burn the same number of calories. Calories are a unit of energy and not a unit of effort! Unfortunately feeling harder is nothing to do with calories burned.Am I burning more than they say because its a harder pace for me to keep up?
If you had a twin the same weight but with a very low HR you would still burning the same calories at the same speed.
That doesnt make sense to me. Can you explain that further? Everything I have heard on this topic, says you burn less calories as you lose weight and become healthier.0 -
No. If you were the same weight and super fit you would burn the same number of calories. Calories are a unit of energy and not a unit of effort! Unfortunately feeling harder is nothing to do with calories burned.Am I burning more than they say because its a harder pace for me to keep up?
If you had a twin the same weight but with a very low HR you would still burning the same calories at the same speed.
That doesnt make sense to me. Can you explain that further? Everything I have heard on this topic, says you burn less calories as you lose weight and become healthier.
Well, losing the weight helps, less kinetic force involved.
However, what happens is that you burn less as you get more efficient at the running.0 -
Does anyone know how the burn is affected by setting the incline?0
-
This doesn't make sense to me. I thought as you became more fit, your body becomes more efficient and you burn less? If what you say is true, what is the point of HR monitors? "
HRMs are to monitor heart rates. If you are out of shape running 5mph, your heart rate will be higher than if you were fit running 5mph. This is how a fit person is able to run faster than someone who is not fit, even though their heart rates may be the same. The faster runner will still burn more calories, mostly after the run has ended, however, due to a prolonged metabolic rate.
http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/general/qa-does-a-faster-runner-burn-more-calories/740.html0 -
Does anyone know how the burn is affected by setting the incline?
From what I've read, negligible.0 -
HR monitor do not and cannot actually measure calories - they count heartbeats.
No. If you were the same weight and super fit you would burn the same number of calories. Calories are a unit of energy and not a unit of effort! Unfortunately feeling harder is nothing to do with calories burned.Am I burning more than they say because its a harder pace for me to keep up?
If you had a twin the same weight but with a very low HR you would still burning the same calories at the same speed.
This doesn't make sense to me. I thought as you became more fit, your body becomes more efficient and you burn less? If what you say is true, what is the point of HR monitors?
There is a relationship between oxygen uptake and heart rate which can be used to estimate calories under certain conditions for an average person and that's all. It's a rough estimate.
If you want an example - when I started out my heartrate was fairly average. Now it's unusually low and takes more effort to get to the same rate when exercising.
In fact I'm now producing more power (energy) at a lower heartrate. My HRM would say I'm burning less calories because it counts heartbeats.
There are some efficiency gains with some exercises (which would reduce your calories expended) but feeling hard or easy isn't part of true calorie burns.0 -
Does anyone know how the burn is affected by setting the incline?
Yes, caloric need is increased by increasing incline. Again, this is a factor of kinetic energy. You need to work harder to go uphill than downhill because you're working against gravity.0 -
No. If you were the same weight and super fit you would burn the same number of calories. Calories are a unit of energy and not a unit of effort! Unfortunately feeling harder is nothing to do with calories burned.Am I burning more than they say because its a harder pace for me to keep up?
If you had a twin the same weight but with a very low HR you would still burning the same calories at the same speed.
This doesn't make sense to me. I thought as you became more fit, your body becomes more efficient and you burn less? If what you say is true, what is the point of HR monitors?
It's physics.....you're moving mass over distance and that requires an energy expenditure that is not related to fitness.
There's not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure (having said that the person with the higher heart rate would burn a nominally higher number of calories as one of the muscles in their body - the heart - is working more) which is why many heart rate monitors also grossly overestimate caloric expenditure. Honestly, there's not much point to HRMs except to track heart rates (it's gratifying to numbers geek like me to compare yesterday's run to the same run from a year or two ago and see that my heart rate has dropped)0 -
This is fascinating! I thought HR played a big factor in helping to estimate calories burned.0
-
You burn less calories because you have lost weight - so less energy needed to move that reduced weight over a distance. In my example I was careful to say same weight and same speed.
No. If you were the same weight and super fit you would burn the same number of calories. Calories are a unit of energy and not a unit of effort! Unfortunately feeling harder is nothing to do with calories burned.Am I burning more than they say because its a harder pace for me to keep up?
If you had a twin the same weight but with a very low HR you would still burning the same calories at the same speed.
That doesnt make sense to me. Can you explain that further? Everything I have heard on this topic, says you burn less calories as you lose weight and become healthier.
Being healthier or fitter are only relevant because a fitter person can go faster for longer!0 -
No. If you were the same weight and super fit you would burn the same number of calories. Calories are a unit of energy and not a unit of effort! Unfortunately feeling harder is nothing to do with calories burned.Am I burning more than they say because its a harder pace for me to keep up?
If you had a twin the same weight but with a very low HR you would still burning the same calories at the same speed.
That doesnt make sense to me. Can you explain that further? Everything I have heard on this topic, says you burn less calories as you lose weight and become healthier.
Well, losing the weight helps, less kinetic force involved.
However, what happens is that you burn less as you get more efficient at the running.
But what you have to factor in is that the more fit you are the higher the V02Max you have which increases calorie burn, given the same level of effort (HR), so getting fit decreases HR, but increases V02Max so most of the burn comes down to how much mass did you move what distance0 -
This is fascinating! I thought HR played a big factor in helping to estimate calories burned.
it is used to estimate oxygen uptake, but if you don't account for becoming more fit then (increased V02Max) then your calculation would be wrong.0 -
OP here. . the problem I'm having is my treadmill doesn't allow me to put in weight and height and all that. Also my fitness monitor says to check your HR periodically through the workout to adjust the calorie burn, however every time i do it adds 100+ calories to my total. Which i know is not right. So for my 45 min and 2.3 miles MFP says 285, treadmill says 301 and my monitor says 984! also treadmill says 150ish HR and monitor says 164. I'm new at this and so confused. This is worse than the first time they told me they were adding letters to my math. . .0
-
No. If you were the same weight and super fit you would burn the same number of calories. Calories are a unit of energy and not a unit of effort! Unfortunately feeling harder is nothing to do with calories burned.Am I burning more than they say because its a harder pace for me to keep up?
If you had a twin the same weight but with a very low HR you would still burning the same calories at the same speed.
This doesn't make sense to me. I thought as you became more fit, your body becomes more efficient and you burn less? If what you say is true, what is the point of HR monitors?
It's physics.....you're moving mass over distance and that requires an energy expenditure that is not related to fitness.
There's not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure (having said that the person with the higher heart rate would burn a nominally higher number of calories as one of the muscles in their body - the heart - is working more) which is why many heart rate monitors also grossly overestimate caloric expenditure. Honestly, there's not much point to HRMs except to track heart rates (it's gratifying to numbers geek like me to compare yesterday's run to the same run from a year or two ago and see that my heart rate has dropped)
If you have a HRM that you can change max HR and V02Max calculation then you will get a very good estimate. I have seen studies that show if you have the inputs, gender, age, weight, duration, distance, avg HR, and V02Max those account of 80+% of total calories burned, the remaining 15-20% is estimated using those inputs which would give you a reliable estimate in the 90-95% range.0 -
Sorry OP - thread has taken a left turn!!OP here. . the problem I'm having is my treadmill doesn't allow me to put in weight and height and all that. Also my fitness monitor says to check your HR periodically through the workout to adjust the calorie burn, however every time i do it adds 100+ calories to my total. Which i know is not right. So for my 45 min and 2.3 miles MFP says 285, treadmill says 301 and my monitor says 984! also treadmill says 150ish HR and monitor says 164. I'm new at this and so confused. This is worse than the first time they told me they were adding letters to my math. . .
"So for my 45 min and 2.3 miles MFP says 285, treadmill says 301"
Both these estimates sound reasonable. (Walking calculators are pretty good at estimating what is a very standard activity)
"monitor says 984" Nope!!
0 -
NP i appreciate any help i can get from people who know more than me.0
-
OP here. . the problem I'm having is my treadmill doesn't allow me to put in weight and height and all that. Also my fitness monitor says to check your HR periodically through the workout to adjust the calorie burn, however every time i do it adds 100+ calories to my total. Which i know is not right. So for my 45 min and 2.3 miles MFP says 285, treadmill says 301 and my monitor says 984! also treadmill says 150ish HR and monitor says 164. I'm new at this and so confused. This is worse than the first time they told me they were adding letters to my math. . .
:flowerforyou: Oops. Sorry.
I usually just estimate 150/mile for me at a weight of 250lbs. Which might be a little high. The 984 number you got sounds WAY out there. 285 to 301 sounds reasonable.0 -
What i did was take the HRM one and subtracted 100 for each time i checked it and it jumped 100. So it was 384 but i guess thats still to high so i guess ill stick to the lower ones til i can get a fitbit or something. I have a Sync Burn atm and its already driving me nuts. Thank you for the help guys.
0 -
Treadmill calculators are pretty good as it is based on amount of work performed (moving a your known mass for a known distance over a known amount of time) As long as you enter age, gender, and weight, the treadmil will probably be a better estimate than an HRM, as HRMs use HR as an estimator of work performed, whereas the treadmill calculates actual work done. The calculations used on treadmills are pretty standard and widely accepted as accurate (not exact, but better than an HRM that you don't change max HR or V02Max inputs)
I didn't know that. This is great information, thanks.0 -
To estimate net caloric burn from walking (net being the additional calories expended directly as a result of the exercise) use
.30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)
(source: http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single)
a 225 lb person would be expending an additional 67.5 cal per mile walked (more if you bump up the incline)
FWIW my treadmill will report (with my age and weight entered) something approaching 600 cal for a 4 mile walk @ 4 mph which I know is grossly exaggerated, Based on distance alone it would be closer to 240 on a flat surface , my garmin comes in under 400 which is closer to being a reasonable number given that I use an incline of 3.0 (and I trust it inasmuch as my outdoor runs come in very close to the 126 cal/mile formula suggested by runners world)0 -
No. If you were the same weight and super fit you would burn the same number of calories. Calories are a unit of energy and not a unit of effort! Unfortunately feeling harder is nothing to do with calories burned.Am I burning more than they say because its a harder pace for me to keep up?
If you had a twin the same weight but with a very low HR you would still burning the same calories at the same speed.
This doesn't make sense to me. I thought as you became more fit, your body becomes more efficient and you burn less? If what you say is true, what is the point of HR monitors?
It's physics.....you're moving mass over distance and that requires an energy expenditure that is not related to fitness.
There's not a linear relationship between heart rate and caloric expenditure (having said that the person with the higher heart rate would burn a nominally higher number of calories as one of the muscles in their body - the heart - is working more) which is why many heart rate monitors also grossly overestimate caloric expenditure. Honestly, there's not much point to HRMs except to track heart rates (it's gratifying to numbers geek like me to compare yesterday's run to the same run from a year or two ago and see that my heart rate has dropped)
If you have a HRM that you can change max HR and V02Max calculation then you will get a very good estimate. I have seen studies that show if you have the inputs, gender, age, weight, duration, distance, avg HR, and V02Max those account of 80+% of total calories burned, the remaining 15-20% is estimated using those inputs which would give you a reliable estimate in the 90-95% range.
Hence my use of "many heart rate monitors", I have no way of knowing with any certainty but based on numerous threads here with the "I want a great HRM but don't want to spend more than $50" theme I'm inclined to think that the majority of HRMs sold are the less sophisticated models (years ago I had a fairly basic Polar, based on its estimates I should have melted away to nothing in 6 months....:laugh: :laugh: )0 -
I think the RW article has some creative assumptions. See discussion in link below. But if you up the multiplier to .42 or so I think it makes more sense for most people. If I plug in the OP's BMR to a corrected version that makes more sense it comes out to 96 calories/mile at 3mph (assuming that is not a jog for her). If it's a jog, it's more like 150.To estimate net caloric burn from walking (net being the additional calories expended directly as a result of the exercise) use
.30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles)
(source: http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single)
a 225 lb person would be expending an additional 67.5 cal per mile walked (more if you bump up the incline)
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1392879-using-3-x-weight-for-net-calories-walking?hl=runners+world+article#posts-21102328
OP- I would call it 100/mile for walking, 150/mile for jogging and adjust it down as you lose weight. Good luck!0 -
Following that link i found lots of good info and a running calorie burn calculator and from there found a nice one for walking that takes into account, weight, walking surface, distance and time. Thats for gross but it has another to convert it to net. I'm able to do 3.1 atm if i go up to 3.5 i might have to use the running one cause with my stubby little legs that is booking it! If anyone would like it it is. . .
http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions