who to believe? treadmill or website?

dcglobalgirl
dcglobalgirl Posts: 207 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So, I just did 30 minutes on the treadmill. It said I was on a 7% incline and walking at 5 mph.

The treadmill said I burned 250 calories (without entering my weight, age, etc.)

This website http://www.mygraphite.com/free-tools/exercise-calorie-calculator

said I burned 467 calories if I was on a 6% incline.

So, who to believe?

And yes, I know I should get a fitbit to be really accurate but I just want an approximate number for now.

Replies

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Net calories, roughly....

    2.0 miles @ 150 pounds -> 90 calories.

    Incline bonus of 50% -> 68 * 1.5 -> 135 calories.
  • dcglobalgirl
    dcglobalgirl Posts: 207 Member
    Net calories, roughly....

    1.5 miles @ 150 pounds -> 90 calories.

    Incline bonus of 50% -> 68 * 1.5 -> 135 calories.

    yeah, that's not what I wanted to hear :)
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    I hear ya. It sucks. :( That's why I started running and cycling instead of walking - it takes a freakin' long walk to burn a big whack of calories
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    Do you mean 5kph? I run at 5mph and couldn't walk that fast. First question.
  • Julzanne72
    Julzanne72 Posts: 468 Member
    So, I just did 30 minutes on the treadmill. It said I was on a 7% incline and walking at 5 mph.

    The treadmill said I burned 250 calories (without entering my weight, age, etc.)

    This website http://www.mygraphite.com/free-tools/exercise-calorie-calculator

    said I burned 467 calories if I was on a 6% incline.

    So, who to believe?

    And yes, I know I should get a fitbit to be really accurate but I just want an approximate number for now.

    My suggestion would be a HRM.
  • lizsmith1976
    lizsmith1976 Posts: 497 Member
    467 for 30 minutes sounds really, really high... Even with the incline. I would have to be running 7mph + to even come anywhere near that.

    I think 250 is probably just about correct for gross calories.

    I also wanted to say, DANG. You "walk" at 5mph at a 7% incline? You are a FAST walker, and that will give you killer legs and glutes. That's great exercise :)
  • tapirfrog
    tapirfrog Posts: 616 Member
    I thought it was roughly 100 calories per mile whether you walked or ran.
  • Wenchiness
    Wenchiness Posts: 126 Member
    I've found that most machines giving you a calorie burn estimate, even inputting height and weight, they lie to you baby. Lie lie lie. Divide what the machine tells you in about half. If it's on a website or even mfp, divide by half again, but this time do it twice. Sucks!
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    I thought it was roughly 100 calories per mile whether you walked or ran.

    Me too but I don't think this is accurate on reflection.
  • lizsmith1976
    lizsmith1976 Posts: 497 Member
    The roughly 100 calories per mile is a good rule of thumb if you have no way of calculating, but the biggest trouble with that is the "net" effect.

    For example, let's say you run 6 miles and it takes you 1 hour. That's 600 calories "gross". But, your body burns (if BMR is 2,400, let's say) 100 calories an hour breathing, moving blood, thinking, digesting, etc. HRMs would tell you 600, but 100 of that is ALREADY counted in what you can eat per day. So you have really only burned an "extra" 500 calories.

    If you walk 6 miles in 2 hours, then that's about 600 calories gross. But your body would have burned 200 calories anyway, making the net number an "extra" 400 calories burned.

    Also, every study I've ever seen shows that running a mile really does burn slightly more. A walked mile might be 85-95 cals for most people and a quickly ran mile might be 115-125 cals.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Depends on your weight too. Both usually lie. Heck 5 mph is running for me, not walking, lol... so it also depends on your height and stride.

    3.5 mph for one hour here with a 3% incline is about 200 calories at 150 lbs. I'm 5'5".

    I'd get a HRM, or just eat back 75% or something.
  • dcglobalgirl
    dcglobalgirl Posts: 207 Member
    Do you mean 5kph? I run at 5mph and couldn't walk that fast. First question.

    Could be. I live in Guatemala. Or the treadmill could just be wrong. But 5kph might make sense.
  • Nicolee_2014
    Nicolee_2014 Posts: 1,572 Member
    Maybe go with 100 calories burned per 10 minutes? 300 calories. To be on the safe side (if you are going to eat these calories back log 250).

    I don't burn nearly as much on the treadmill as I do the cross trainer or doing anything else. So yeah, both sound a bit high.
  • lilawolf
    lilawolf Posts: 1,690 Member
    I'm about 150lbs and mfp would give me 261 cals for 30 minutes of walking at 5.0. You weigh 35 pounds more and were at an incline.

    hillrunner.com says that the "equivalent pace" would be 6.7 mph which would give me 360 calories.

    You get bonus points for extra weight, but then you have to subtract some because of over estimating. I would go with 300 calories if I were you IF YOU WERE NOT HOLDING ON. If you were holding on then I'd got with 200-250.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    I'm about 150lbs and mfp would give me 261 cals for 30 minutes of walking at 5.0.

    That is a massive over-estimate.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    I thought it was roughly 100 calories per mile whether you walked or ran.

    In terms of net calories (which matter for walking, because it burns slow), running is roughly double the calories/distance of walking.
  • lilawolf
    lilawolf Posts: 1,690 Member
    I'm about 150lbs and mfp would give me 261 cals for 30 minutes of walking at 5.0. You weigh 35 pounds more and were at an incline.

    hillrunner.com says that the "equivalent pace" would be 6.7 mph which would give me 360 calories.

    You get bonus points for extra weight, but then you have to subtract some because of over estimating. I would go with 300 calories if I were you IF YOU WERE NOT HOLDING ON. If you were holding on then I'd got with 200-250.

    Oops, just saw the Guatemala comment. Yep, those are kilometers per hour. Now you are down to ~150 if you weren't holding on.
  • lizsmith1976
    lizsmith1976 Posts: 497 Member
    Ahhh, I bet you were doing 5 kilometers per hour, which would be 3.1 miles per hour, and a very reasonable walking pace if at that incline. Guatemala has the road signs in KM, not miles, right? So it is likely that machines are measured that way.

    Then the 250 seems high for 30 minutes.
  • billsica
    billsica Posts: 4,741 Member
    Whatever one is lower.
  • Nicolee_2014
    Nicolee_2014 Posts: 1,572 Member
    Some people can walk at 8mph but it would be a pretty fast stride...I'm guessing she means 5kph
  • sullus
    sullus Posts: 2,839 Member
    I use endomondo to track my runs .. 2 mile run (I'm 220 lbs, average 4.7mph) .. it says that run is 271 cal.
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    The treadmill tells me I burn 500-700 per hour but for MFP purposes I enter and eat back 300 max to allow for errors.
  • lilawolf
    lilawolf Posts: 1,690 Member
    I'm about 150lbs and mfp would give me 261 cals for 30 minutes of walking at 5.0.

    That is a massive over-estimate.

    Which I say lower down if you actually bother to read the entire comment before replying and criticizing. :huh:
  • MrsB123111
    MrsB123111 Posts: 535 Member
    I'm about 158 pounds and I run/walk about 15-20 minutes on the treadmill almost daily. I use a HRM and I usually burn roughly 100-150 calories depending on speed. The treadmill ALWAYS shows about 20+ calories burned more than my HRM.
  • gonnasee33
    gonnasee33 Posts: 163
    I run on the treadmill at a 2% incline @ 5 MPH for 30 mins and my HRM tells me im burning about 475 .. I trust that more than EITHER of the other sources..
  • Sjenny5891
    Sjenny5891 Posts: 717 Member
    Go with the smallest number.

Categories