Treadmill with incline burns more calories?

Options
I input my information to the treadmill calculator on the shapesense website and at a level incline 0% I burn 280 calories but with a 10% incline I burn 500 (both walking at 3mph for an hour) is this accurate?
«134

Replies

  • angelxsss
    angelxsss Posts: 2,402 Member
    Options
    I don't know about the exact numbers, but I do know that walking at an incline is definitely more work than walking without. I would sometimes walk with it at a 30% incline and would be huffing and puffing and sweating like I was running!
  • juggernaut1974
    juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212 Member
    Options
    Does it burn more calories? Yes

    Are those numbers accurate? Probably not. Exercise machines - even those you input your stats into - tend to vastly overestimate calories burned.
  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    Options
    Walking at an incline should, all things being equal, burn more calories. I'd question those exact values, though. Those websites are notoriously inaccurate.
  • sjohnson__1
    sjohnson__1 Posts: 405 Member
    Options
    Yes. Walking at an incline (even as low as 10%) is far more beneficial. I don't know if the MFP estimators are all that accurate but the incline makes all the difference. When I do SSC, I always use an incline.
  • Yi5hedr3
    Yi5hedr3 Posts: 2,696 Member
    Options
    Insufficient data...specify...
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    Does it burn more calories? Yes

    Are those numbers accurate? Probably not. Exercise machines - even those you input your stats into - tend to vastly overestimate calories burned.

    This

    I'd halve the burn

    And remember that if you hold on it doesn't count
  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    Options
    Yes. Walking at an incline (even as low as 10%) is far more beneficial. I don't know if the MFP estimators are all that accurate but the incline makes all the difference. When I do SSC, I always use an incline.

    10% isn't low. It's about as high an incline as some treadmills go.

    Even 1% or 2% incline is better than 0. It works the leg muscles and adds some cardio intensity. I usually aim for 3% when I'm running on a treadmill. (My outdoor running route is fairly hilly.)
  • SingingSingleTracker
    SingingSingleTracker Posts: 1,866 Member
    Options
    I input my information to the treadmill calculator on the shapesense website and at a level incline 0% I burn 280 calories but with a 10% incline I burn 500 (both walking at 3mph for an hour) is this accurate?

    Anything that jacks your HR up will burn more calories - be it a faster pace, or an incline. Calculating that difference accurately is where it gets complicated.

    Do you use the "I know my V02 max" calculator or the "unknown V02 max" calculator?
  • MonkeyMel21
    MonkeyMel21 Posts: 2,394 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Does it burn more calories? Yes

    Are those numbers accurate? Probably not. Exercise machines - even those you input your stats into - tend to vastly overestimate calories burned.

    This

    I'd halve the burn

    And remember that if you hold on it doesn't count

    Do you think walking at 3mph for 60 minutes would really only burn 140 calories? Or are you talking only about the added incline burning 500 cal? I'm just curious, I think I always over estimate my calorie burn on treadmills :(
  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    Options
    Do you think walking at 3mph for 60 minutes would really only burn 140 calories? I'm just curious, I think I always over estimate my calorie burn on treadmills :(

    Without knowing your height, weight, age, heart rate, etc. it's impossible for anyone on these forums to tell you that.

    Your best bet is to compare your real world results. If you're losing weight at the expected pace on average (after smoothing out fluctuations), then keep on doing what you're doing. If you're not losing as quickly as you'd expect, or stagnating or gaining, then eat fewer exercise calories back. If you're dropping weight faster than you'd expect, then eat more exercise calories back / eat more calories in general.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Does it burn more calories? Yes

    Are those numbers accurate? Probably not. Exercise machines - even those you input your stats into - tend to vastly overestimate calories burned.

    This

    I'd halve the burn

    And remember that if you hold on it doesn't count

    Yeah I see all those people walking at like 18% while holding the rail for dear life and I'm shaking my head.
  • MonkeyMel21
    MonkeyMel21 Posts: 2,394 Member
    Options
    segacs wrote: »
    Do you think walking at 3mph for 60 minutes would really only burn 140 calories? I'm just curious, I think I always over estimate my calorie burn on treadmills :(

    Without knowing your height, weight, age, heart rate, etc. it's impossible for anyone on these forums to tell you that.

    Your best bet is to compare your real world results. If you're losing weight at the expected pace on average (after smoothing out fluctuations), then keep on doing what you're doing. If you're not losing as quickly as you'd expect, or stagnating or gaining, then eat fewer exercise calories back. If you're dropping weight faster than you'd expect, then eat more exercise calories back / eat more calories in general.

    Oh, I'm good. I'm in a state of perpetual maintenance, lol. I just feel like 140 calories per one hour of walking 3mph, for any body type (except perhaps marathon runners?), is extremely low, hence the curiosity. Thank you for your reply though!
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Does it burn more calories? Yes

    Are those numbers accurate? Probably not. Exercise machines - even those you input your stats into - tend to vastly overestimate calories burned.

    This

    I'd halve the burn

    And remember that if you hold on it doesn't count

    Do you think walking at 3mph for 60 minutes would really only burn 140 calories? Or are you talking only about the added incline burning 500 cal? I'm just curious, I think I always over estimate my calorie burn on treadmills :(

    Actually now you point it out ...no I don't ...probably is closer to 300 dependent on size and fitness

    For me I know it takes me about 14 minutes to burn 100 cals running at 7miles/hr at an incline
  • peleroja
    peleroja Posts: 3,979 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Does it burn more calories? Yes

    Are those numbers accurate? Probably not. Exercise machines - even those you input your stats into - tend to vastly overestimate calories burned.

    This

    I'd halve the burn

    And remember that if you hold on it doesn't count

    Do you think walking at 3mph for 60 minutes would really only burn 140 calories? Or are you talking only about the added incline burning 500 cal? I'm just curious, I think I always over estimate my calorie burn on treadmills :(

    Walking 3 miles at 140 calories sounds reasonable depending on your weight.

    I admit I'm fairly light, but I calculate that I only burn about 200 calories running that far in 27 minutes or so.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Does it burn more calories? Yes

    Are those numbers accurate? Probably not. Exercise machines - even those you input your stats into - tend to vastly overestimate calories burned.

    This

    I'd halve the burn

    And remember that if you hold on it doesn't count

    Do you think walking at 3mph for 60 minutes would really only burn 140 calories? Or are you talking only about the added incline burning 500 cal? I'm just curious, I think I always over estimate my calorie burn on treadmills :(

    According to this -- http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning -- the burn per mile could be substantially less, even.

    It says total burn for walking is .53xweight per mile, so for me that's about 199 calories. But, if you deduct what you would have burned anyway (which you should), it's only .3xweight per mile, or for me about 112 calories.

    Lots of the overestimate is probably related to not adjusting for what you would have burned anyway, which makes a huge difference for long slow exercise. I chop calories for long runs and longer bike rides substantially to account for this.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    segacs wrote: »
    Do you think walking at 3mph for 60 minutes would really only burn 140 calories? I'm just curious, I think I always over estimate my calorie burn on treadmills :(

    Without knowing your height, weight, age, heart rate, etc. it's impossible for anyone on these forums to tell you that.

    Your best bet is to compare your real world results. If you're losing weight at the expected pace on average (after smoothing out fluctuations), then keep on doing what you're doing. If you're not losing as quickly as you'd expect, or stagnating or gaining, then eat fewer exercise calories back. If you're dropping weight faster than you'd expect, then eat more exercise calories back / eat more calories in general.

    But this is exactly right -- the specific calculations are less important.
  • StacyChrz
    StacyChrz Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Does it burn more calories? Yes

    Are those numbers accurate? Probably not. Exercise machines - even those you input your stats into - tend to vastly overestimate calories burned.

    This

    I'd halve the burn

    And remember that if you hold on it doesn't count

    Yeah I see all those people walking at like 18% while holding the rail for dear life and I'm shaking my head.

    This!
    It makes me crazy to see the people holding on. "That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works".
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    Options
    I see that all the time.
  • juggernaut1974
    juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212 Member
    edited December 2015
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Does it burn more calories? Yes

    Are those numbers accurate? Probably not. Exercise machines - even those you input your stats into - tend to vastly overestimate calories burned.

    This

    I'd halve the burn

    And remember that if you hold on it doesn't count

    Do you think walking at 3mph for 60 minutes would really only burn 140 calories? Or are you talking only about the added incline burning 500 cal? I'm just curious, I think I always over estimate my calorie burn on treadmills :(

    As the others have said - a lot hinges on your overall weight and fitness level

    But that said, a good rule of thumb that I've always used is about 100 cal/mile of running and about 50 cal/mile of walking or biking. So an hour of walking a 3 mph (ie 3 miles) using the rule of thumb would be about 150 cal for me.

    Again, that's worked for me...others may be different.
  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    Options
    ^ You're a guy. All things being equal, your burns will be much higher than hers.