Are treadmill calorie counters correct?

committomittxoxo

YooHoo... Question!! Maybe for all the trainers out there?!

I love to run.. especially on the treadmill. But are the 'calories lost' calculators on treadmills accurate? I always assumed they were high ballin it a bit.. but I thought my buddy Dolvett on 'Biggest Loser' said they're pretty close? I am confused.. anybody able to shine some light on this?

Thanks friends..

Cheers!

arc918

I run outside (a bunch), at 175 lbs, I burn ~ 125 calories per mile. If I hustle I can burn ~ 1,000 in an hour. That is my reality check. Clicking off 7:30 miles for an hour takes a decent chunk of effort. So anything that is indicating that type of burn best be at a high level of effort.

FWIW - I find the MFP database to be pretty accurate for running (but not much else)

lovinglife1001

Well if you set your weight, height on the treadmill before starting, it's closer to the right number of calories burned otherwise it's quite inflated. I invested in heart rate monitor and it was such a good investment.

lonaneomaflame

I"m not sure about the ones at the gym but the one my dad got for our home I am sure is way off, I'm sure I'm not burning 100 calories walking a mile at my normal spead exspecially when I did that every day for four years of high school.

melrose09

Well if you set your weight, height on the treadmill before starting, it's closer to the right number of calories burned otherwise it's quite inflated.

Very true. Make sure you customize it otherwise it defaults to the average person or some random number. The treadmill at the gym (without entering myheight and weight) says I burn 320(ish) calories in 3 miles at a 10 min mile pace when in actuality I only burn about 230. HUGE difference

NatalieBrooke88

No, they typically majorly overestimate calories burned. I would highly recommend investing in a heart rate monitor (polar ft4) which is constantly gauging your heartrate and giving you a much, much more accurate calorie expenditure.

--
edit-- even when you enter in your weight.. heart rate is a crucial determinant.

MHunte

No, they typically majorly overestimate calories burned. I would highly recommend investing in a heart rate monitor (polar ft4) which is constantly gauging your heartrate and giving you a much, much more accurate calorie expenditure.

--
edit-- even when you enter in your weight.. heart rate is a crucial determinant.

You could be right!! Most people dont even hold on to the sensor on the Treadmill to monitor their HR and your HR makes a differnce in calorie burn..... IMO

committomittxoxo

Thanks guys!

Thank you for clearing that up.. got stuck in a little debate with my loving mother.. turns out we were both sort of right. I'll take the credit for it though. lol.

Cheers!
:drinker:

bluenikita

So if the treadmill has a hear-rate analyzer that you grab onto, is it still inflating the calories burned?

I spent an hour on the treadmill doing moderate-pace walking and fooling around with different inclines - mostly a gentle grade - and it said I burned about 225 calories and walked roughly two miles. I used the heart rate monitor for most of the walk. I think that sounds mostly right. But I don't want to get too reliant on what it says if it's just telling me I burned more than I actually did!

NatalieBrooke88

So if the treadmill has a hear-rate analyzer that you grab onto, is it still inflating the calories burned?

I spent an hour on the treadmill doing moderate-pace walking and fooling around with different inclines - mostly a gentle grade - and it said I burned about 225 calories and walked roughly two miles. I used the heart rate monitor for most of the walk. I think that sounds mostly right. But I don't want to get too reliant on what it says if it's just telling me I burned more than I actually did!

Well, I highly, highly doubt the treadmill takes into account heart rate when estimating calorie expenditure. Some inidviduals do not test their HR at all, some once, and some keep tabs on it during the entirety of their workout. I just dont think the machines have the algorithms to complete the calculations. I would still highly recommend getting a HR monitor. It is really a small investment for what is provides. Feel free to message me for more questions!

kattydid65

I did a comparision with the treadmill calorie counter and my FT4. The treadmill was way off. I even set my weight, and age on the treadmil. The whole time I have been using the machines calorie counters I thought I was burning up some calories, but come to find out I was SO WRONG! How depressing! that explains alot. I ordered the FITBIT soon I am going to have this down to a science.
Maybe you could borrow someone's Heart Rate Monitor and give it a try. Check it out yourself. Best of luck to you! :drinker:

Azdak

No, they typically majorly overestimate calories burned. I would highly recommend investing in a heart rate monitor (polar ft4) which is constantly gauging your heartrate and giving you a much, much more accurate calorie expenditure.

--
edit-- even when you enter in your weight.. heart rate is a crucial determinant.

Actually, for walking and running, the energy cost of the activity (e.g. speed and incline) is well-established and relatively easy to calculate. All you need is body weight. Heart rate is irrelevant in this case.

katismiles

I just take whatever the treadmill tells me I've burnt and cut it into half or less, cause I assume it is wrong

Azdak

So if the treadmill has a hear-rate analyzer that you grab onto, is it still inflating the calories burned?

I spent an hour on the treadmill doing moderate-pace walking and fooling around with different inclines - mostly a gentle grade - and it said I burned about 225 calories and walked roughly two miles. I used the heart rate monitor for most of the walk. I think that sounds mostly right. But I don't want to get too reliant on what it says if it's just telling me I burned more than I actually did!

Unless you hold on to the handrails, and as long as you can enter your weight, the calorie estimates on treadmills should be very accurate for walking--more accurate than an HRM. Running is a little different on a treadmill, because there is no wind resistance and more of a "bounding" action of the cushioned deck. So the calorie number are probably off by about 15% (too high).

MHunte

No, they typically majorly overestimate calories burned. I would highly recommend investing in a heart rate monitor (polar ft4) which is constantly gauging your heartrate and giving you a much, much more accurate calorie expenditure.

--
edit-- even when you enter in your weight.. heart rate is a crucial determinant.

Actually, for walking and running, the energy cost of the activity (e.g. speed and incline) is well-established and relatively easy to calculate. All you need is body weight. Heart rate is irrelevant in this case.

I don't understand...

NatalieBrooke88

No, they typically majorly overestimate calories burned. I would highly recommend investing in a heart rate monitor (polar ft4) which is constantly gauging your heartrate and giving you a much, much more accurate calorie expenditure.

--
edit-- even when you enter in your weight.. heart rate is a crucial determinant.

Actually, for walking and running, the energy cost of the activity (e.g. speed and incline) is well-established and relatively easy to calculate. All you need is body weight. Heart rate is irrelevant in this case.

Heart Rate is INCREDIBLY relevant. Someone who is in great shape will not burn as many calories doing the same activity (walking) as someone in poor shape (Given they are same weight).. Heart rate, however, solves this problem. Don't get me wrong, weight does figure in.. but it is critically necessary to determine how hard your heart is working to estimate how many calories you are burning.

sarahsmom1

If you can not put your weight in then it will not be correct, the average tread mill is set for a 150 pound male

NightOwl1

It's important to realize that both treadmill calorie counts and HRM calorie counts are estimates, and should be treated as such. Wayyyy to much emphasis is put into HRMs on this site, as if their calorie readings are the gospel.

Heart rate is not the only factor that determines calorie loss. Several other factors determine how much energy you burn during an exercise. You could have the same heart rate on two different exercises but burn very different calorie counts, but the HRM will not account for that.

As one of the other posters said, how many calories your body burns while walking/running is pretty well established, so a properly calibrated treadmill should be pretty accurate in that regard. I would love to see a study where HRM and treadmill estimates are compared to the actual number of calories burned, and to see which is more accurate. My money would be on the treadmill.

HRMs are useful for activities that aren't in controlled environment. It's the only way to get a decent estimate for your Zumba class. But machine estimates on exercises that are done at a consistent pace are fairly accurate.

Also, as a sidenote, I don't believe the Heart Rate monitor on machines actually affects the calorie count. I think it's just for informational purposes only.

NatalieBrooke88

It's important to realize that both treadmill calorie counts and HRM calorie counts are estimates, and should be treated as such. Wayyyy to much emphasis is put into HRMs on this site, as if their calorie readings are the gospel.

Heart rate is not the only factor that determines calorie loss. Several other factors determine how much energy you burn during an exercise. You could have the same heart rate on two different exercises but burn very different calorie counts, but the HRM will not account for that.

As one of the other posters said, how many calories your body burns while walking/running is pretty well established, so a properly calibrated treadmill should be pretty accurate in that regard. I would love to see a study where HRM and treadmill estimates are compared to the actual number of calories burned, and to see which is more accurate. My money would be on the treadmill.

HRMs are useful for activities that aren't in controlled environment. It's the only way to get a decent estimate for your Zumba class. But machine estimates on exercises that are done at a consistent pace are fairly accurate.

Also, as a sidenote, I don't believe the Heart Rate monitor on machines actually affects the calorie count. I think it's just for informational purposes only.

Seriously? A "controlled" environment has nothing to do with it. Clealy, HR isn't the only variable.. however, Heart Rate Monitors, which take your weight and gender into account are typically 90-95 percent accurate. Treadmills are a "one size fits all" device. They do not take into account your Heart Rate- which means they do not take into your account your fitness level. Really shocked that this is even debatable.

Azdak

No, they typically majorly overestimate calories burned. I would highly recommend investing in a heart rate monitor (polar ft4) which is constantly gauging your heartrate and giving you a much, much more accurate calorie expenditure.

--
edit-- even when you enter in your weight.. heart rate is a crucial determinant.

Actually, for walking and running, the energy cost of the activity (e.g. speed and incline) is well-established and relatively easy to calculate. All you need is body weight. Heart rate is irrelevant in this case.

Heart Rate is INCREDIBLY relevant. Someone who is in great shape will not burn as many calories doing the same activity (walking) as someone in poor shape (Given they are same weight).. Heart rate, however, solves this problem. Don't get me wrong, weight does figure in.. but it is critically necessary to determine how hard your heart is working to estimate how many calories you are burning.

No it is not. A fit person running 6.0 mph will burn the same number of calories as a lower fit person of the same weight running at 6.0 mph. It will feel easier for the more fit person, but that's because their maximum fitness level is higher, and so the cost of running 6.0 mph represents a smaller percentage of their maximum. But the energy cost of running is essentially the same (about 10 METs), no matter who is doing it.

The only time heart rate is relevant is when someone is performing an activity that has different movements and intensities and therefore does not have a fixed energy cost. The only reason you need heart rate in that case is because that really is the only performance variable you have available. Even then, it is a very indirect way of estimating calories and has a fairly large error factor.

Simple aerobic activities such as walking, running, cycle ergometry (stationary bike that can measure watts or power meter on a road bike), stairclimbing--these have been researched in detail and there are well-established metabolic equations developed by the American College of Sports Medicine to predict oxygen uptake (and thus calories burned) at various intensity levels. None of these equations use heart rate as a variable--nor do they use fitness level.

The reason why so many people emphasize heart rate to estimate calories is that the use (and misuse) of HRMs has become so ingrained in the popular fitness culture. Yet very few people understand how these devices work, the underlying physiological processes behind the algorithms, or their limitations. As a result, people continuously make faulty assumptions about the nature of exercise based on the information they get from their HRMs. Even many personal trainers--who should know better--make these faulty assumptions and thus validate the misinformation.

I have written several blogs on the subject. This one is the most germane, and has links to the original one that contains the most basic information:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/calories-burned-during-exercise-it-s-the-intensity-not-the-heart-rate-that-counts-26524

Azdak

It's important to realize that both treadmill calorie counts and HRM calorie counts are estimates, and should be treated as such. Wayyyy to much emphasis is put into HRMs on this site, as if their calorie readings are the gospel.

Heart rate is not the only factor that determines calorie loss. Several other factors determine how much energy you burn during an exercise. You could have the same heart rate on two different exercises but burn very different calorie counts, but the HRM will not account for that.

As one of the other posters said, how many calories your body burns while walking/running is pretty well established, so a properly calibrated treadmill should be pretty accurate in that regard. I would love to see a study where HRM and treadmill estimates are compared to the actual number of calories burned, and to see which is more accurate. My money would be on the treadmill.

HRMs are useful for activities that aren't in controlled environment. It's the only way to get a decent estimate for your Zumba class. But machine estimates on exercises that are done at a consistent pace are fairly accurate.

Also, as a sidenote, I don't believe the Heart Rate monitor on machines actually affects the calorie count. I think it's just for informational purposes only.

I have seen a few studies that tried to compare HRM readings with actual measured oxygen uptake, but there are not that many out there. To be honest, it's not really seen as a serious subject among exercise physiologists. They see HRM calorie counts more as toys than anything else.