Calories burned on treadmill between walking/running

hungrypotato
hungrypotato Posts: 1,642 Member
I've been really wondering exactly or at least a really good estimate on actual calories burned on the treadmill and I found this article and it sounds good.

http://m.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single

I never really trusted the machines calories or myfitnesspals calories so I always adjusted them somewhat because I didn't want to add in extra calories that might slow my weightloss.

I now understand why the machine usually is more than what you really are burning that is EXTRA.

The machine calculates the gross calories you would burn, meaning the same calories you would have burned sitting on the couch+ the calories you burned just from the exercise.

Since you are already eating the calories your body burns already you shouldn't add in the extra calories since you already are eating them.

I'll do some calculations so you get it, and maybe don't have time to find them in the article.

For walking Gross Calories: .53 x 185(my weight) = about 98 x how many miles, lets say 4miles = 392 calories which is gross calories

For walking Net Calories: .3 x 185 = 55 x 4= 220 Net calories (wow see the difference between the two)

For running Gross calories: .75 x 185 = 138 x 7 miles = 966 Gross calories

For running Net Calories: .63 x 185 = 116 x 7 = 812 Net Calories (the difference again wow!)


Also the articles says that walking at 5.0 or higher burns more than running at 5.0 but running at 3.0 burns more than walking at 3.0


What does everyone think of this. Does it sound good, hopefully it's helpful to someone. :)

Replies

  • phjorg1
    phjorg1 Posts: 642 Member
    All a moot point. Goal of any workout should be to push yourself. Not to trudge along at barely average.
  • hungrypotato
    hungrypotato Posts: 1,642 Member
    How is your response relevant to any of what I said? This post was not about pushing yourself or anything. I found an article that I thought was interesting.
  • shaneuk20
    shaneuk20 Posts: 1
    Hi

    I found exactly the same article after my girlfriend and I stopped loosing weight because we increased our exercising (and eating).

    I was about to write my own topic when I found yours.

    From the massive lack of response you got I won't bother but you are right, the calories are certainly wrong in MyFitnessPal.

    I have my suspicions about all the other exercises too. Without adjustment it would be harder to cycle a mile than walk which is patently wrong.

    Ta Shane
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Not exactly sure what questions you are asking, but I can address some of the points I think you were making:

    1. Subtracting BMR from total exercise calories: Theoretically, yes, BMR calories should not be included in exercise calories. Whether you bother to subtract them out I guess depends on total calories burned. For me, it amounts to 100 calories in an hour. If I work out for an hour, I will burn 800-1100 calories, depending on the workout. Given the imprecision inherent in all calorie estimations, to me the number is too small to bother with. Plus, I never would "eat back" all of the calories in a workout, so it is a moot point. There is no set "rule" -- you have to look at your overall exercise calories and BMR and decide if it's worth worrying about.

    2. For people who feel the need to log recreational activity, BMR becomes more significant. If one wants to log calories for playing golf, for example, then you have a combination of a relatively low-intensity activity and an extended period of time. So that 350-400 total BMR calories become a lot more significant. Personally, I prefer the TDEE method, which does away with the need to play around with so many numbers.

    3. I'm not sure why the whole "run vs walk" question remains such an obsession with so many people. It's simple: running burns more calories at a higher rate than walking. If you run a certain distance, you will burn significantly more calories than walking that same distance.

    4. The whole "walking at X mph burns more calories than running at the same speed" has almost no practical significance. There is a certain speed--between 4.8 -6.0 mph for most people--at which walking becomes biomechanically less efficient than running at that same speed and thus burns more calories. The actual speed will vary for each individual and it based on individual body mechanics. It's a nice intellectual argument, but it is mostly meaningless. Why? One: walking at that faster speed is uncomfortable for most people and they won't do it, or it requires learning specific racewalking techniques that most people cannot or will not care to try to master. Two: if one has the ability to walk at those faster speeds, one almost certainly has the fitness level to RUN EVEN FASTER and thus burn more calories and achieve greater conditioning. It is only practical for those who A) love racewalking or B) have a high level of conditioning but have some physical condition that prevents them from running. That's a pretty small subset of the population.