Treadmill Calorie Count - Accurate or Not?

corchy23
corchy23 Posts: 41
in Fitness and Exercise
I have and older treadmill…not ‘ancient’, but it was purchased probably 7-8 years ago. It’s what I always use to run and I keep up with my calories burned based on what it tells me I’ve burned. I’ve been doing it for months now, and it wasn’t until MFP and trying treadmill workouts that I’ve began to question whether the info it spits out is accurate.

I know whenever I enter I how much I ran into my MFP exercise tracker, I always have to change the calories because my treadmill has told me WAY less. I’ve heard MFP overestimates how much you burn though, so I didn’t think much of it. I’m wondering because I’ve been trying these new treadmill workouts I find online and they say a person of a certain weight should burn X amount of calories, and I seem to be burning around 100-150 or so less than it says. For example, I did a 50 minute interval run I found that boosted you burn 500 calories doing it, and my treadmill said after 55 minutes (did 5 minute cool down jog) that I’d only burned 320 calories. It was estimated for a 130 pound female, and I’m around 138….but would that really make that much of a difference?

I know a couple hundred calories isn’t really that big of a deal – but hey it could buy me another snack! I’m mostly just curious if this is a common thing…anyone ever used a HRM or a device like that and found they were burning more than the treadmill claimed?

Replies

  • Jonesie1984
    Jonesie1984 Posts: 612 Member
    not.
  • Cherryblosm3
    Cherryblosm3 Posts: 106 Member
    Do not go by your treadmill. You need to get a HRM (heart Rate Monitor). That is the most accurate way to track calories.

    I have a Polar FT60 and i LOVE it. I would recommend buying it off amazon rather than in store as it can be quite expensive.
  • nathanielnieman
    nathanielnieman Posts: 10 Member
    I use a heart rate monitor with a chest strap and I have been seeing the treadmill at my YMCA being 35-50% off on Cal burned.

    Chest strap is saying around 1000 cal, and treadmill is saying 400/500 burned.

    So from what I am seeing they are low. I have also used a couple of sites to figure a avg and the Heart Rate monitor is about right every time.
  • grider054
    grider054 Posts: 5
    My HRM burns more then what the treadmill or eliptical says (not by a lot) but over time..say over 1 hr run it can vary up to 100 calories. I have a Polar FT4 with a chest strap and it works great for me. If we are talking about consistency, in my opinion, that is the route to go. What I tend to notice is (what I think is happening) is when you run HIIT the treadmill or eliptical is ASSuming that your heart rate is actually dropping...(I don't know if that's true, but I am basing that on what I see when I run).
  • TracyJo93
    TracyJo93 Posts: 197 Member
    I find that the calorie count on MFP is off, but the one on the treadmill is fairly accurate for me. I put in my age, weight and height every time, though, so idk if that makes a difference.
  • LydiaShackelford
    LydiaShackelford Posts: 93 Member
    NOT accurate. I have a Heart Rate Monitor. The treadmill told me the other day that I burned a measly 99 calories. My HRM said 254. It's the best investment I've made.
  • coe28
    coe28 Posts: 715 Member
    I have and older treadmill…not ‘ancient’, but it was purchased probably 7-8 years ago. It’s what I always use to run and I keep up with my calories burned based on what it tells me I’ve burned. I’ve been doing it for months now, and it wasn’t until MFP and trying treadmill workouts that I’ve began to question whether the info it spits out is accurate.

    I know whenever I enter I how much I ran into my MFP exercise tracker, I always have to change the calories because my treadmill has told me WAY less. I’ve heard MFP overestimates how much you burn though, so I didn’t think much of it. I’m wondering because I’ve been trying these new treadmill workouts I find online and they say a person of a certain weight should burn X amount of calories, and I seem to be burning around 100-150 or so less than it says. For example, I did a 50 minute interval run I found that boosted you burn 500 calories doing it, and my treadmill said after 55 minutes (did 5 minute cool down jog) that I’d only burned 320 calories. It was estimated for a 130 pound female, and I’m around 138….but would that really make that much of a difference?

    I know a couple hundred calories isn’t really that big of a deal – but hey it could buy me another snack! I’m mostly just curious if this is a common thing…anyone ever used a HRM or a device like that and found they were burning more than the treadmill claimed?
    I have the same issue with my elliptical, except the stats from that are much higher than MFP...

    ETA: Did 30 mintues on my elliptical last night. It said I burned 420, MFP said 280. That's quite a difference. :huh:
  • morielia
    morielia Posts: 169 Member
    I don't know about a treadmill, but my HRM consistently shows a higher effort than the stationary bike's reading by several hundred calories. Like yesterday, I rode at 19.5 mph for 30 minutes and the read out on the machine was 225. The read out on my HRM was 470-something. The difference on the elliptical isn't usually quite so high - about 80-100 calories difference.

    When I was doing C25K and wearing my HRM, I burned surprisingly few calories, and I'm a lot heavier than you are.
  • AnexRavensong
    AnexRavensong Posts: 262 Member
    Heck, I don't even think the MFP exercise calorie counter is correct. I just did about 3 hours walking rather fast (I do that, plus I was in a hurry doing my errands) and it gave me like 800 calories burned.. I HIGHLY doubt it.
  • mychellelynne
    mychellelynne Posts: 122 Member
    Mine is fairly similar to my HRM. I have noticed though that MFP is way off (usually by 50%). I would recommend the HRM also.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    Treadmill are usually pretty accurate and cals burned is a measure of work performed, and the calculations in treadmills have been tested and are pretty good indicators, many times much better than an HRM, which measures cals burned based on the assumption that your HR assumes you are taking in a certain amount of oxygen vs. your Max oxygen uptake.

    Treadmill measures actual work performed > HRM, which assumes elevated HR assumes you are pushing at a certain % intensity and that the V02Max calc embedded is correct.

    So to that end, treadmill will likely be more accurate than HRM, but not necessarily, as there are much less assumptions, this is of course you have a treadmill that you input your weight.
  • shortstuff17
    shortstuff17 Posts: 86 Member
    I always wondered that too. I did a workout on one treadmill and burned X amount of calories. the next time I did a workout on a different treadmill. I increased my speed, incline, etc and burned close to the same amount of calories. I was thinking there is no way! i think a pedometer would be more accurate...
  • gwengraysonjones
    gwengraysonjones Posts: 1
    I use an IPOD Nano to track my steps and it calculates calories burned based on my height and weight. Calories burned according to my treadmill is always about 50% higher than what my IPOD says.
  • SIMA80
    SIMA80 Posts: 60 Member
    Would not trust calorie count on any of the machines. The best way to know how many calories you burn is with reliable HRM, like polar that has a chest strap.
  • Mich4871
    Mich4871 Posts: 143 Member
    I found that the treadmill is fairly accurate (if I measure it against what my HRM says). With that said, I find other cardio machines are way off when according to my HRM readings.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    I have and older treadmill…not ‘ancient’, but it was purchased probably 7-8 years ago. It’s what I always use to run and I keep up with my calories burned based on what it tells me I’ve burned. I’ve been doing it for months now, and it wasn’t until MFP and trying treadmill workouts that I’ve began to question whether the info it spits out is accurate.

    I know whenever I enter I how much I ran into my MFP exercise tracker, I always have to change the calories because my treadmill has told me WAY less. I’ve heard MFP overestimates how much you burn though, so I didn’t think much of it. I’m wondering because I’ve been trying these new treadmill workouts I find online and they say a person of a certain weight should burn X amount of calories, and I seem to be burning around 100-150 or so less than it says. For example, I did a 50 minute interval run I found that boosted you burn 500 calories doing it, and my treadmill said after 55 minutes (did 5 minute cool down jog) that I’d only burned 320 calories. It was estimated for a 130 pound female, and I’m around 138….but would that really make that much of a difference?

    I know a couple hundred calories isn’t really that big of a deal – but hey it could buy me another snack! I’m mostly just curious if this is a common thing…anyone ever used a HRM or a device like that and found they were burning more than the treadmill claimed?
    I have the same issue with my elliptical, except the stats from that are much higher than MFP...

    elliptical calorie burn calculator is usually an overestimation. They have not been tested the same as treadmills and there is a lot of "help" (momentum) used in the elliptical.
  • abnerner
    abnerner Posts: 452 Member
    not
  • flynnfinn
    flynnfinn Posts: 209 Member
    HRM is the way to go. and even then, i still subtract 25% from what my HRM says. margin for error everywhere. not to mention, HRMs are just based on estimatates. i'd rather underestimate my caloric burn than overestimate.
  • dsjohndrow
    dsjohndrow Posts: 1,820 Member
    All calorie counts are estimates. Even a good heart rate monitor is. In fact, so are the labels on food packagea and the entire database on MFP - all estimates!

    What matters is that you choose one source for your calories and use it. This is in fact why there are so many fights over whether or not to eat your exercise calories.

    My personal choice is an HRM because it tends to measure effort better than many other methods.
  • coe28
    coe28 Posts: 715 Member
    I have and older treadmill…not ‘ancient’, but it was purchased probably 7-8 years ago. It’s what I always use to run and I keep up with my calories burned based on what it tells me I’ve burned. I’ve been doing it for months now, and it wasn’t until MFP and trying treadmill workouts that I’ve began to question whether the info it spits out is accurate.

    I know whenever I enter I how much I ran into my MFP exercise tracker, I always have to change the calories because my treadmill has told me WAY less. I’ve heard MFP overestimates how much you burn though, so I didn’t think much of it. I’m wondering because I’ve been trying these new treadmill workouts I find online and they say a person of a certain weight should burn X amount of calories, and I seem to be burning around 100-150 or so less than it says. For example, I did a 50 minute interval run I found that boosted you burn 500 calories doing it, and my treadmill said after 55 minutes (did 5 minute cool down jog) that I’d only burned 320 calories. It was estimated for a 130 pound female, and I’m around 138….but would that really make that much of a difference?

    I know a couple hundred calories isn’t really that big of a deal – but hey it could buy me another snack! I’m mostly just curious if this is a common thing…anyone ever used a HRM or a device like that and found they were burning more than the treadmill claimed?
    I have the same issue with my elliptical, except the stats from that are much higher than MFP...

    elliptical calorie burn calculator is usually an overestimation. They have not been tested the same as treadmills and there is a lot of "help" (momentum) used in the elliptical.

    I just wonder because whether I do 10 minutes at a slow walking pace or 10 minutes with a lot of resistance and a jogging pace, MFP still gives me the same amount of calories. Whereas my elliptical factors speed and resistance in. I'm sure the accurate amount is in the middle somewhere.
  • TrailRunner61
    TrailRunner61 Posts: 2,505 Member
    Get a HRM. Machines that estimate calorie burns are based on an average weight. A 138lb person isn't going to burn as much as someone who weighs 250 or as low as someone who weighs 100lbs. I have a Polar Ft4 that I love. I've used it almost daily for over a year and the battery is still going. It's worth every penny.
  • ilikebooksnotrunning
    ilikebooksnotrunning Posts: 11 Member
    I have a Polar FT7 HRM and I found that it usually calculates me below the treadmill by around 80-100 calories each time. I figure even if it's off, I'd rather underestimate calories burned rather than overestimate.
  • cewilli
    cewilli Posts: 1 Member
    Not accurate AT ALL. Get a Heart Rate Monitor with a chest strap. One of the best purchases I've ever made!!
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    I have and older treadmill…not ‘ancient’, but it was purchased probably 7-8 years ago. It’s what I always use to run and I keep up with my calories burned based on what it tells me I’ve burned. I’ve been doing it for months now, and it wasn’t until MFP and trying treadmill workouts that I’ve began to question whether the info it spits out is accurate.

    I know whenever I enter I how much I ran into my MFP exercise tracker, I always have to change the calories because my treadmill has told me WAY less. I’ve heard MFP overestimates how much you burn though, so I didn’t think much of it. I’m wondering because I’ve been trying these new treadmill workouts I find online and they say a person of a certain weight should burn X amount of calories, and I seem to be burning around 100-150 or so less than it says. For example, I did a 50 minute interval run I found that boosted you burn 500 calories doing it, and my treadmill said after 55 minutes (did 5 minute cool down jog) that I’d only burned 320 calories. It was estimated for a 130 pound female, and I’m around 138….but would that really make that much of a difference?

    I know a couple hundred calories isn’t really that big of a deal – but hey it could buy me another snack! I’m mostly just curious if this is a common thing…anyone ever used a HRM or a device like that and found they were burning more than the treadmill claimed?
    I have the same issue with my elliptical, except the stats from that are much higher than MFP...

    elliptical calorie burn calculator is usually an overestimation. They have not been tested the same as treadmills and there is a lot of "help" (momentum) used in the elliptical.

    I just wonder because whether I do 10 minutes at a slow walking pace or 10 minutes with a lot of resistance and a jogging pace, MFP still gives me the same amount of calories. Whereas my elliptical factors speed and resistance in. I'm sure the accurate amount is in the middle somewhere.

    It would be better than MFP, but most likely still not accurate.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    Not accurate AT ALL. Get a Heart Rate Monitor with a chest strap. One of the best purchases I've ever made!!

    See my earlier post regarding treadmill vs. HRM.
  • corchy23
    corchy23 Posts: 41
    Thanks for all the quick feed back and opinions guys! I know calories burned always depends on your own level of exertion…and I finish these 500 calorie burn runs soaked in sweat and full of endorphins, so I feel like I’m putting in my personal max effort. I know a HRM is the best way to go and I plan to invest in one soon : ) Several of you mentioned it being more accurate if you have a treadmill where you enter your weight, and mine doesn't have that feature…so maybe that’s why I’m seeing a significantly lower number.
  • Jcole05
    Jcole05 Posts: 21 Member
    I don't think the treadmills at my gym are quite 8 years old, but my HRM usually tells me I've burned 150 more in an hour than the treadmill counter does. I'm a 158 lb. female, 5'8. Hope this helps!

Categories