question about treadmill

Options
2»

Replies

  • ktekc
    ktekc Posts: 879 Member
    Options
    NP i appreciate any help i can get from people who know more than me.
  • scraver2003
    scraver2003 Posts: 528 Member
    Options
    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.
  • ktekc
    ktekc Posts: 879 Member
    Options
    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. :heart:
  • Clothwright
    Clothwright Posts: 31
    Options
    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.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    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)
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    Am I burning more than they say because its a harder pace for me to keep up?
    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.

    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: )
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    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)
    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.

    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!
  • ktekc
    ktekc Posts: 879 Member
    Options
    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.aspx

Categories