How can 60 minutes on a treadmill burn 853 calories?

dnnymitc
dnnymitc Posts: 3
in Fitness and Exercise
So I plug in treadmill and I get stair-treadmill ergometer, general... 60 minutes gives 853 calories. That is a huge amount...could this be right?
«1

Replies

  • meshashesha2012
    meshashesha2012 Posts: 8,329 Member
    if you're very big and going at a moderately intense rate then yeah it's possible

    or if you're not so big and running very fast up a steep incline then yeah it's possible
  • toddis
    toddis Posts: 941 Member
    Seems really high. But yeah, waht meshasha said. Machines are notorious for overestimating though.
  • SameMe_JustLess
    SameMe_JustLess Posts: 245 Member
    Sounds high. Use a HRM and then you'll know your calories burn a little better.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    So I plug in treadmill and I get stair-treadmill ergometer, general... 60 minutes gives 853 calories. That is a huge amount...could this be right?

    Only possible if you are already quite fit.
  • redladywitch
    redladywitch Posts: 799 Member
    I think it depends how overweight you are. Like someone else suggested....I would use a HRM.
  • bethvandenberg
    bethvandenberg Posts: 1,496 Member
    unless you were running the whole time I would say way high
  • lmmo1977
    lmmo1977 Posts: 25
    I can measure that with a HRM from Polar. Last Thusday I spent 651 calories in 44 minutes. If it was a full hour it would have been almost 890 calories. No big deal.
  • devodev44
    devodev44 Posts: 50 Member
    Sounds about right for me.

    Try this page and you will get a more accurate total: http://www.easycalculation.com/health/heart-rate-calorie-burn.php
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    I might burn that many calories running a half marathon...but only if I'm going all out at a personal best pace. I'm kinda small, though, so I don't generate the burn that larger people do. It depends on how big you are and how much effort you're putting out. Were you running?
  • dnnymitc
    dnnymitc Posts: 3
    Seems really high. But yeah, waht meshasha said. Machines are notorious for overestimating though.

    But this isn't from the machine, it is from myfitnesspal. So what I think I am hearing is that I should use the machine calculation and not what the program pulls up.
  • toddis
    toddis Posts: 941 Member
    MFP, for me, overestimates by a lot. Machines by a little. HRM a little less.

    Did you feel like you were working really hard the entire hour?
  • mortuseon
    mortuseon Posts: 579 Member
    Seems really high. But yeah, waht meshasha said. Machines are notorious for overestimating though.

    But this isn't from the machine, it is from myfitnesspal. So what I think I am hearing is that I should use the machine calculation and not what the program pulls up.

    MFP estimates are often over optimistic, too. I usually take about 15% off MFP's burn estimate.
  • dnnymitc
    dnnymitc Posts: 3
    MFP, for me, overestimates by a lot. Machines by a little. HRM a little less.

    Did you feel like you were working really hard the entire hour?

    Nothing like 850 calories. I'll double check the machines output. Thanks folks.
  • ChancyW
    ChancyW Posts: 437 Member
    It completely depends on how hard you were working. You didn't really give many details about the workout so it's hard to even say if it's a high count or not.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    If the MFP description of speed was exactly what you did the whole time, and you did it level, and ran between 5-6.3 mph - MFP is going to be more accurate than your normal HRM.

    And very easily possible.

    Treadmill may or may not use the same formula - decent ones do, but they must ask your weight.

    In fact, that's how you test a HRM to see how decent it is estimating.

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

    Study showed 3.4 for walking and 4.8 calories for running off in 20 min from formula, HRM's much more than that.

    Totally weight and pace. Takes so much energy to move so much mass for anyone, no matter how hard it felt to you, or where your HR is.
  • eldamiano
    eldamiano Posts: 2,667 Member
    If you ran for an hour on the road then you would burn more.

    853 is achievable but depends on your pace/speed. Try running at roughly the same pace using a run tracking app such as Runkeeper which will tell you calories burnt. Running off a treadmill will be more effective as the treadmill does some of the work for you, so if you arent burning 853 from normal running, your treadmill is telling you porkies.
  • xXbigman63Xx
    xXbigman63Xx Posts: 1
    Good morning. A little more information would really be helpful. How much do you weigh? How fast are you walking? Are you walking at an incline? These all change the amount of calories that you will burn. The treadmill and all other machines give you a calorie readout but you can take that number and as a general rule it can anywhere from 10% more to 10% less. Hope this helps.
  • Zomoniac
    Zomoniac Posts: 1,169 Member
    Seems normal. I break 900 an hour at my usual cruising pace (12kph or so). I'm not overweight and am quite fit. HRM gives me similar numbers.
  • HarpingOn
    HarpingOn Posts: 55 Member
    Wish I got 900 an hour still :(
  • DebbieLyn63
    DebbieLyn63 Posts: 2,654 Member
    So I plug in treadmill and I get stair-treadmill ergometer, general... 60 minutes gives 853 calories. That is a huge amount...could this be right?

    That sounds more like a stairmaster than a treadmill. Just on the treadmill, going at a moderate pace, I'd say no.

    If you have the incline cranked up and are basically running, then perhaps you can burn that much.

    I found early on that many of the calorie burn counts on MFP gave me up to twice as many calories than my HRM did. Cycling was the worst offender.
  • cedman1
    cedman1 Posts: 104 Member
    Entirely possible and depends on your amount of work output and incline during the time period.
  • ScottH_200
    ScottH_200 Posts: 377 Member
    Like others have said, one's weight, age and intensity during the work-out are important factors.
  • SoDamnHungry
    SoDamnHungry Posts: 6,998 Member
    How much do you weigh? How fast do you run?

    I only burn about 90 calories per mile. Someone twice my weight would burn a lot more.
  • SoDamnHungry
    SoDamnHungry Posts: 6,998 Member
    http://www.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator

    ^I use this to get a vague idea since the treadmills are so very inaccurate.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    853 in an hour is pretty doubtful, but without your stats and more info, it's impossible to guess.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    It is impossible to say...way more information would be needed than you provided...which is also why data base calorie burns are notoriously inaccurate. There are just way too many variables involved to just go into a database and say I did X for 60 minutes and I weight Y....way more variables than that at play.

    Also, if your rather unfit then your perceived level of effort is going to be skewed...because lack of fitness makes everything seem "vigorous" and intense. So people will say "vigorous effort" in a database not understanding that the database or calculator is assuming you're already at a relatively good level of aerobic fitness...so when you say "vigorous effort" for your 30 minute swim, the calculator is shooting back Michael Phelps type of calorie burns.

    In general it is rather difficult to burn more than 10 calories per minute...that's working pretty hard. For the same level of effort you may burn a few more calories per minute if you're substantially overweight or a few calories less if you're lighter. When I was doing this, I seriously questioned anything greater than 10 calories per minute...for me that was equivalent to running about 6 MPH and I knew what that felt like...so if I didn't feel that level of effort with something else, I knew I wasn't burning that much or more than about 10 calories per minute.
  • Bry_Fitness70
    Bry_Fitness70 Posts: 2,480 Member
    I think that is totally reasonable, I can burn about 15 calories a minute running 8 minute miles, as measured by my HR monitor. This is ballpark what the treadmill estimates when I enter my age and weight during setup.

    I'm more concerned about friends who credit themselves with this type of burn walking their dogs or cleaning the house!
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    So I plug in treadmill and I get stair-treadmill ergometer, general... 60 minutes gives 853 calories. That is a huge amount...could this be right?

    Instead of plugging in a machine, type in the activity you did. Was it "run", "walk", "jog"? Pick the right activity and speed to get a better estimate, though still probably wont be right, but much better than what you did.

    I don't know about you but I have never treadmill before, I have run, walked and jogged on a treadmill but no idea what exercise tread-milling would be (yes being sarcastic here)
  • christinemadden0223
    christinemadden0223 Posts: 175 Member
    Depends what you're doing. Like the others said, use a HRM. My elliptical at gome says I burn 800 cals in 45 minutes- the one at the gym says 460. My HRM generally says about 520-560 depending on my intensity that day. I go by the HRM (though I would LIKE to think 800 =) )
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    Depends what you're doing. Like the others said, use a HRM. My elliptical at gome says I burn 800 cals in 45 minutes- the one at the gym says 460. My HRM generally says about 520-560 depending on my intensity that day. I go by the HRM (though I would LIKE to think 800 =) )

    I somewhat agree, except that I would point out that treadmills are much more accurate than an elliptical as the equation for work performed (METs) is pretty standard and studied. The motion, etc on an elliptical makes it much harder to figure out the amount of work being performed. So in your case I would say HRM is more accurate than the elliptical machine, when it comes to treadmills, most of them will actually be better than a HRM due to the equation of acutal work done, vs. the HRM making assumptions on how much work was done.

Categories