Is what the treadmill saying true?

Options
2»

Replies

  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    Options
    So, I've always been a bit unsure. I do treadmill workouts (no jogging/running because of my feet and knees) at a 10% incline.. and never noticed, until tonight, that it tells you the calories you burned at the end of the workout.

    Here is my treadmill adventures for the day:

    2.5 mph at a 10% incline for 30 minutes (2.5 pace, 10 incline, for 30 mins)
    3.0 mph at a 10% incline for 5 minutes (3.0 pace, 10 incline, 5 mins
    2.0 mpg at a 10% incline for 10 minutes (2.0 pace, 10 incline, 10 mins)
    I weigh 189lbs.

    Now, the treadmill said I burned around 856 calories in this time..
    And this treadmill site (http://42.195km.net/e/treadsim/) says I burned 433..
    but, because MFP doesn't let you choose anything but your speed and time.. it says I burned 267 calories..

    Help me out! I've been using MFP but I might be burning more calories than what it tells me!

    I think 856 might be a little high.

    My stats:
    5'4"
    209lbs
    23

    I went on a 2.9 mile walk at an average speed of 3.2 mph on a trail with a few steep hills, my heart rate monitor estimated at 865. I of course don't trust the amount even a HRM estimates and only logged 80% of those calories, so about 692. Oh and I even jogged on one of the straight stretches (average speed of 4.5), but just logged it as walking.
  • Snapper1985
    Snapper1985 Posts: 124 Member
    Options
    Can you get a heart rate monitor? Then you will know almost exactly. I use one and always eat almost every single calorie back and have been losing steadily so it's definitely on point. :)


    THIS.
  • evansproudmama
    evansproudmama Posts: 496
    Options
    If you want to be extremely accurate i suggest the polar ft watch line... For about 90$ you get a watch and a heart rate monitor that work together. It tells you your heart rate and accurately measures your calories. Treadmills are set to count calories for certain weights, which might not be yours. I use my watch almost everyday and it was more that worth the 90$

    Definitely agree with this post!

    I third this.. I have the polar f7 which works in conjunction with my iphone app and links up to the machines at my gym that have bluetooth and streams my heart rate on to them. Before I had an iphone I had the watch one and it worked just as nicely, you can find them even cheaper on ebay or amazon used and they work well still if your on a budget :) I found myself addicted to working out when I first got mine because it was so exciting to see a better count of the calories i was burning. I dont eat back all my exercise calories but if I did I would def. invest in a heart rate monitor to be sure I wasn't consuming to much or to little.

    Good lUck on your journey and congrats on making the choice to get healthy!!
  • albertine58
    albertine58 Posts: 267 Member
    Options
    Heart rate monitors are probably the best tool we have, but they can be really inaccurate as well. Even the fancy ones! From a scientific perspective, calorie burn is crazy hard to measure and heart rate is only a small part of the equation. For this reason, I personally don't care much about estimating my calories burned during workouts- I make sure to push myself hard every single day and do different exercises every day, and that's what matters!
    Side note- make sure you're strength training! changes your body way faster than the treadmill :)
  • MariaChele85
    MariaChele85 Posts: 267 Member
    Options
    The treadmill is NEVER right. Invest in a heart rate monitor.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    So, I've always been a bit unsure. I do treadmill workouts (no jogging/running because of my feet and knees) at a 10% incline.. and never noticed, until tonight, that it tells you the calories you burned at the end of the workout.

    Here is my treadmill adventures for the day:

    2.5 mph at a 10% incline for 30 minutes (2.5 pace, 10 incline, for 30 mins)
    3.0 mph at a 10% incline for 5 minutes (3.0 pace, 10 incline, 5 mins
    2.0 mpg at a 10% incline for 10 minutes (2.0 pace, 10 incline, 10 mins)
    I weigh 189lbs.

    Now, the treadmill said I burned around 856 calories in this time..
    And this treadmill site (http://42.195km.net/e/treadsim/) says I burned 433..
    but, because MFP doesn't let you choose anything but your speed and time.. it says I burned 267 calories..

    Help me out! I've been using MFP but I might be burning more calories than what it tells me!

    If you entered weight, and the pace is correct, it'll be more accurate than HRM at smaller inclines.

    I still can't believe there are treadmills out there that people claim have no place to enter weight.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

    But that is rather steep, and personal inefficiency starts entering into the equation more. Still probably as equal as HRM though.

    Here's another site. What's nice here, for eat-back calories for your workout, you'd use the NET option. To compare to what machine or HRM would tell you, use Gross option.

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    The treadmill is NEVER right. Invest in a heart rate monitor.

    How is 3.4 calories off for walking, and 4.8 calories off for jogging, for 1 mile?

    That's way better than a HRM is going to give you.

    Read and learn.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
  • dixiewhiskey
    dixiewhiskey Posts: 3,333 Member
    Options
    The treadmill is NEVER right. Invest in a heart rate monitor.

    How is 3.4 calories off for walking, and 4.8 calories off for jogging, for 1 mile?

    That's way better than a HRM is going to give you.

    Read and learn.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

    I dunno... I ran on the treadmill today. My Polar synced with the treadmill.. HRM says I burned 332 for 35 minutes running at 7.0mph, treadmill said 175 cals..

    I rounded the burn off to 300 for logging purposes but I can't possible see how the HRM is more wrong than the treadmill which only asked for my age and weight. Normally, I'd agree with what you are saying but given that I was at a stall before owning a HRM (and logging based on the low cals the treadmill would say)..
  • Oncebittentwiceshy38
    Oncebittentwiceshy38 Posts: 127 Member
    Options
    The treadmills at my gym have a feature where you can put in your weight and age and tracks your heart rate. If they didn't have that, I wouldn't trust the calorie readout at all.
  • dixiewhiskey
    dixiewhiskey Posts: 3,333 Member
    Options
    ^ I think without factors like age, height, weight combined at minimum, treadmills will never be accurate. A lot of treadmills I've seen also require you to hold on to the bars in order for the sensors to pick up your heart rate.. not good, makes for an inefficient workout. Today, I also noticed how my HRM would show my heart rate higher than what it said on the treadmill, It wouldn't go higher than 166 although I maintained a HR of 170+ during most of my workout
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    The treadmill is NEVER right. Invest in a heart rate monitor.

    How is 3.4 calories off for walking, and 4.8 calories off for jogging, for 1 mile?

    That's way better than a HRM is going to give you.

    Read and learn.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is

    I dunno... I ran on the treadmill today. My Polar synced with the treadmill.. HRM says I burned 332 for 35 minutes running at 7.0mph, treadmill said 175 cals..

    I rounded the burn off to 300 for logging purposes but I can't possible see how the HRM is more wrong than the treadmill which only asked for my age and weight. Normally, I'd agree with what you are saying but given that I was at a stall before owning a HRM (and logging based on the low cals the treadmill would say)..

    Just have to go read the study, actually, studies. The treadmill is the most tested machine in the lab. So a good one that is calibrated right (they all aren't, timer can be off, speed of belt can be off, that means pace is off) can be more accurate.

    Since the study formula's are public domain and been around for years, only cheap ones just take the watts spent on moving the belt and translate that to calories (410 watts is 352 calories in 1 hr, easy math) compared to doing the weight and pace thing.

    Polar does not sync with a treadmill, the treadmill has a receiver in it, just like your watch unit, that receives the HR beat, and displays it. That's it.

    I actually think both are low in this case.

    If 7 mph for the whole 35 min from start to finish, 0% incline, 542 calories.

    But, the formula's are most accurate from 4 to 6.3 mph - so you went above that and inaccuracies will start coming in.

    Formula overestimation at 8.5 mph has been found to be 15%.
    So I think you still burned more than HRM would show.

    Sadly women, even with lab tested VO2max and HRmax entered in watch can be 13% off. 33% if default values.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study
  • dixiewhiskey
    dixiewhiskey Posts: 3,333 Member
    Options
    You are so knowledgeable, thanks for taking the time to explain.

    The 35 mins consisted of 5 minute walk warm up and 5 minute walking cooldown.. it probably should still be a higher caloric burn regardless. I feel like I worked harder than 300 calories but I'm fine with logging the 300. Better than logging 175 and wondering why I'm at a stall or relying on MFP calculations (and gaining weight from overestimation).

Categories