Just curious, why does it automatically tell me 854 calories when I punch in 50 minutes on treadmill

MSH2930
MSH2930 Posts: 161 Member
edited November 26 in Getting Started
Sorry for the questions, I am new at this and am confused by a lot of it. When I type in my exercise for the day and I type in the treadmill and my minutes, say 50 minutes like I did today on the treadmill, it automatically pops up that I burned like 854 calories..??? Or yesterday when I did 40 minutes on the treadmill, it popped up like 798 calories..??? I type in my weight and age and all when I started initially, and if I am supposed to be burning that many calories in 40 or 50 minutes, something is amiss. I even doubted my activity because when I looked around online, even fit people doing the treadmill at say 7 MPH (basically jogging/running) for like 30 minutes only burned around 500 calories.

I do roughly 2.7 - 3.2 MPH (mostly hovering around 2.7 or 2.8) and I burn roughly 450 - 500 calories, nowhere near the 854 or even 794..! Seems like a lot to expect of anyone, let alone the weight I entered when I began (just a week ago).....

I don't know, is this site like geared for those training to be in Ms or Mr Olympia..? Because a lot of it does not make sense to me or seem possible..??

Replies

  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,401 Member
    Grossly high, and I have no idea where they come up with the numbers. For walking at slower to moderate speeds I think one of the more recently accepted formulas is Your weight X .3 X miles walked. That would give you approximate net calorie burn.
  • CoffeeNCardio
    CoffeeNCardio Posts: 1,847 Member
    No way, MFP works for anyone of any activity level.

    My guess is you are using a bad bad log. Some of those exercises are created by the users and not the site, so they would work fine for the dude who created them, but be terrible for someone else. Unless you are like, sprinting full on for those 50 minutes, there is almost no chance in hello that you are burning that much.

    Can you copy and paste the name of the treadmill/walking log you are picking (the name you pick such as Walking, 3.5 mph, brisk pace)? It may give folks insight into why it's behaving this way.
  • shannleslie
    shannleslie Posts: 3 Member
    Strange :-/ I jog at at intervals of 4.5 to 6 mph for 50 minutes 5 days a week and it gives me a burn of roughly 360 calories. I set my entry lower to account some what for over estimations so its definitely a bad entry your using
  • MSH2930
    MSH2930 Posts: 161 Member
    Again, so appreciative of the replies, totally making sense now!! I agree, the numbers are ridiculously high. When I type in treadmill to enter into my exercise for the day, the only option that pops ups that I see to click is "Stair-treadmill ergometer, general" so I click that, and when I type in my minutes, say 40, it automatically 'calculates' 794. Well, at least now I know I am not going the pace of a snail!! ;)

    Thanks all for the replies!! xx
  • Keiko385
    Keiko385 Posts: 514 Member
    This site has a lot calculators that are pretty accurate for various exercises that you can use to double check against MFP calculations

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx
  • shannleslie
    shannleslie Posts: 3 Member
    look up walking or jogging :-) dont worry about the treadmill part x
  • blueboxgeek
    blueboxgeek Posts: 574 Member
    When I go on the cross trainer for an hour it tells me I have burnt almost 900 calories!
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    double click on the calorie part when entering an exercise and put it in at a sensible amount

    MFP database is ridiculous and should never be trusted

  • MSH2930
    MSH2930 Posts: 161 Member
    Thanks all for the replies, glad to see I am not alone in this thinking! Keiko385, thanks for posting that link, I will definitely be checking it out!
  • NealNH
    NealNH Posts: 106 Member
    I agree with shannleslie, use walking 2.5 or 3.0 instead of the treadmill ergometer.
  • MSH2930
    MSH2930 Posts: 161 Member
    NealNH and shannleslie, sounds like a plan!! ty!!
  • WendyLaubach
    WendyLaubach Posts: 518 Member
    I ignore the calorie count on the exercise log; it's obviously too high. What's important for me is to do at least 45 minutes a day at a heart rate above 110 (heart monitors are great and needn't cost more than $22). It's also important for me not to increase the calories I've budgeted to eat even if my exercise increases a bit from my daily minimum. As long as I do that consistently, the weight drops consistently, which is much more important than the "net calorie" calculation, which I suspect is apples to oranges and therefore misleading.

    I may or may not be getting accurate calorie counts on what I eat, either, for that matter, but I suspect I'm closer, and anyway it doesn't matter as long as I'm counting consistently from day to day. At that rough level of eating and exercising, my weight drops reliably day after day, regardless of what the exactly scientific level of net calories was or how it should have been calculated.
  • barryplumber
    barryplumber Posts: 401 Member
    Keiko385 wrote: »
    This site has a lot calculators that are pretty accurate for various exercises that you can use to double check against MFP calculations

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

    I use this site as well really close count
  • MSH2930
    MSH2930 Posts: 161 Member
    WendyLaubach wrote: »
    I ignore the calorie count on the exercise log; it's obviously too high. What's important for me is to do at least 45 minutes a day at a heart rate above 110 (heart monitors are great and needn't cost more than $22). It's also important for me not to increase the calories I've budgeted to eat even if my exercise increases a bit from my daily minimum. As long as I do that consistently, the weight drops consistently, which is much more important than the "net calorie" calculation, which I suspect is apples to oranges and therefore misleading.

    I may or may not be getting accurate calorie counts on what I eat, either, for that matter, but I suspect I'm closer, and anyway it doesn't matter as long as I'm counting consistently from day to day. At that rough level of eating and exercising, my weight drops reliably day after day, regardless of what the exactly scientific level of net calories was or how it should have been calculated.

    Totally makes sense!! Thanks, I agree that sounds more logical.
    Thanks for all the replies!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories