How true are the calories burned on treadmill

Options
bareessentials
bareessentials Posts: 18
in Health and Weight Loss
I'm doing the couch to 5k which is HIIT training so on the treadmill at the gym I alternate between two different speeds (walking and fast jogging), I put in my weight and age so do you think the calories burned are accurate? I don't know how to put it into mfp because it doesn't know how fast I'm running or walking in each interval so should I just go with what the treadmill says?

It seems pretty accurate but I've heard people saying they aren't because everyone weighs different, but it always asks for age and weight so does this mean that it is accurate?

EDIT: Sorry just realised I put this under the wrong category, should have been fitness and exercise

Replies

  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    I would look at how many miles you've gone and estimate your average speed (walking + running/2) and compare a database value to the treadmill to see how realistic the treadmill's estimate seems.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    I would look at how many miles you've gone and estimate your average speed (walking + running/2) and compare a database value to the treadmill to see how realistic the treadmill's estimate seems.


    The problem with that approach is that there is a qualitative difference in energy expenditure between running and walking the same distance. Taking an average speed for walking only or for running only might work, but for a run/walk combo, you cannot use that approach and be accurate. In the OP's case, the treadmill reading will be the most accurate--as long as running speed is > 5mph and walking speed is < 4.2 mph.
  • DanaDark
    DanaDark Posts: 2,187 Member
    Options
    Not at all accurate.

    Take the number the treadmill gives you. Divide it in half. If you are lucky, that is how much you burned.

    Sucks yes, I know. But you'd rather over estimate your burn than under estimate it.
  • caracrawford1
    caracrawford1 Posts: 657 Member
    Options
    Not accurate. The problem with running on a treadmill is that the belt helps move you along unlike true running sqq running outside. Plus no wind resistance and most people aren't setting it at an incline (a ten percent incline will approximate running outside on FLAT terrain) so you are doing the equivalant of running slightly downhill and being helped a bit at that. Im onlyva nerd on this because I run marathons.
  • FredricMontgomery
    FredricMontgomery Posts: 2
    Options
    The calories burned are a meaningless estimate, so you can ignore them. They come from inaccurate formulas that are as useless as the body mass index. Here is the important thing to remember about exercise: it builds muscles, and muscles burn calories 24 hours a day. If you exercise your entire body, not just your legs, after a few months you will burn far more calories than you do today. All day, every day. good luck.
  • DanaDark
    DanaDark Posts: 2,187 Member
    Options
    The calories burned are a meaningless estimate, so you can ignore them. They come from inaccurate formulas that are as useless as the body mass index. Here is the important thing to remember about exercise: it builds muscles, and muscles burn calories 24 hours a day. If you exercise your entire body, not just your legs, after a few months you will burn far more calories than you do today. All day, every day. good luck.

    No.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Not accurate. The problem with running on a treadmill is that the belt helps move you along unlike true running sqq running outside. Plus no wind resistance and most people aren't setting it at an incline (a ten percent incline will approximate running outside on FLAT terrain) so you are doing the equivalant of running slightly downhill and being helped a bit at that. Im onlyva nerd on this because I run marathons.

    That is a comfortable part of running folklore, but the research indicates there is not that big an effect, especially at slower running speeds. The "bounding" effect is more pronounced (but still modest ) at higher speeds (can't remember the actual numbers), but at something like 6 mph there is no difference. Wind resistance is not that big a factor either. 10% incline is too big a number--it's more like 1%.
  • Quarkles
    Quarkles Posts: 69 Member
    Options
    Not very accurate. For example, today my treadmill said that I burned around 850 calories, but according to my heart rate monitor, it was really 675 calories. Big difference.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Not very accurate. For example, today my treadmill said that I burned around 850 calories, but according to my heart rate monitor, it was really 675 calories. Big difference.

    Again: the existence of a difference between a machine reading and an HRM reading is NOT. Evidence that the machine is wrong. HRMs cannot be used as a reference. Not only are the HRMs themselves inherently inaccurate, probably less than 5% of the people using them have them set up properly--or even have an HRM model than can be set up properly.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    On a name-brand commercial treadmill that allows for weight input, at walking speeds between 2 and 4 mph (with or without grade) and without any handrail support, the treadmill calorie reading are quite likely the most accurate readings one can get without using a metabolic cart. They are more accurate than almost any HRM.

    I don't know how I can explain it any more clearly.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Not at all accurate.

    Take the number the treadmill gives you. Divide it in half. If you are lucky, that is how much you burned.

    Sucks yes, I know. But you'd rather over estimate your burn than under estimate it.

    http://www.stanford.edu/~clint/Run_Walk2004a.rtf

    http://wweb.uta.edu/faculty/heddins/KINE 4315/Metabolic Calc posting for students Spring 2011.ppt

    http://www.nursingcenter.com/lnc/JournalArticle?Article_ID=759693
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Not very accurate. For example, today my treadmill said that I burned around 850 calories, but according to my heart rate monitor, it was really 675 calories. Big difference.

    And in reality, you probably only burned 300 calories.

    Big difference, for sure.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    I would look at how many miles you've gone and estimate your average speed (walking + running/2) and compare a database value to the treadmill to see how realistic the treadmill's estimate seems.


    The problem with that approach is that there is a qualitative difference in energy expenditure between running and walking the same distance. Taking an average speed for walking only or for running only might work, but for a run/walk combo, you cannot use that approach and be accurate. In the OP's case, the treadmill reading will be the most accurate--as long as running speed is > 5mph and walking speed is < 4.2 mph.
    It was just for a sanity check value. There's a difference but it's not huge. If I log 30 mins. of walking and 30 of running and sum them I get 232 calories. If I do the average speed, I get 280. Someone posted the other day that their treadmill tells them almost 1000 calories for an hour of walking 2-3mph. That's the sort of error I was trying to give them an easy way to spot.
  • caracrawford1
    caracrawford1 Posts: 657 Member
    Options
    I was assuming he was going faster than 6(I'm female and I can coast along at 7.5miles for an hour no prob) men are faster.
  • Quarkles
    Quarkles Posts: 69 Member
    Options
    Not very accurate. For example, today my treadmill said that I burned around 850 calories, but according to my heart rate monitor, it was really 675 calories. Big difference.

    And in reality, you probably only burned 300 calories.

    Big difference, for sure.

    Out of curiosity, what is the point of wearing a HRM if it's off by that much? I'm also confused because another poster in this thread is saying that the treadmill reading is more accurate than the HRM reading even though it's way more.

    Edit: Okay, went and did some reading, and the purpose of the HRM is exactly that - to monitor the heart rate. So...I guess that answers that question.

Categories