Treadmill with incline burns more calories?
mrsaniamanning
Posts: 56 Member
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?
0
Replies
-
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!0
-
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.0 -
Walking at an incline should, all things being equal, burn more calories. I'd question those exact values, though. Those websites are notoriously inaccurate.0
-
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.0
-
Insufficient data...specify...0
-
juggernaut1974 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 count0 -
sjohnson__1 wrote: »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.)0 -
mrsaniamanning wrote: »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?0 -
juggernaut1974 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
0 -
MonkeyMel21 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.0 -
juggernaut1974 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.0 -
MonkeyMel21 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!0 -
MonkeyMel21 wrote: »juggernaut1974 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 incline0 -
MonkeyMel21 wrote: »juggernaut1974 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.0 -
MonkeyMel21 wrote: »juggernaut1974 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.0 -
MonkeyMel21 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.0 -
juggernaut1974 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".
0 -
I see that all the time.0
-
MonkeyMel21 wrote: »juggernaut1974 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.0 -
^ You're a guy. All things being equal, your burns will be much higher than hers.0
-
^ You're a guy. All things being equal, your burns will be much higher than hers.
Which is why I was sure to point out that it was my personal rule of thumb and that other people will be different.
That said, I wouldn't say men have "much higher" calorie burns than women just as a result of being men...it's more likely due to the fact that men weigh more and have more muscle mass, which I also accounted for in saying that overall burns hinge primarily on your weight and fitness level:
Furthermore, it would seem a bit of a stretch to term the difference as 'huge'
... A study done by researchers at Syracuse found that men burned about 105 kilocalories/mile on average running a mile in 9 minutes and 30 seconds, and about 52 calories when walking the same mile in 19 minutes. For the women in the study, that burn was 91 and 43 calories, respectively.
Source: http://running.competitor.com/2015/03/training/many-calories-running-burn_123951#cDMuEjx2Zmlmelxv.990 -
I am "5.5
50 years old
145lbs
walking 3.5 to 3.8 mph for 60 minutes gives me around 350 calories burned according to my HRM and my treadmill a little bit under that
When i do it on an incline of 6 which i do most day i will get close to 500 calories with my HRM and 425 with the treadmill.
So its wild lol
btw this is GROSS calories not NET
Interesting part is when i calculate the data over 90 days, so what i lost and burned the number of my HRM is off about 13% ( so higher)
Over the NET calories.
0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »MonkeyMel21 wrote: »juggernaut1974 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.
I'm 23 5'9 145 lbs and walk on the treadmill daily at 10% incline some days an hour some days an hour and a half at 3 mph I don't hold on to the rail I hold a book or ipad in my hands, so I'd be burning 100 calories?0 -
As an old lady with balance issues, I sometimes hold on. If I need to take a drink, mop my brow, or turn my head to check the clock, I hold on. I try not to make a habit of it, but holding on is better than falling off.0
-
mrsaniamanning wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »MonkeyMel21 wrote: »juggernaut1974 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.
I'm 23 5'9 145 lbs and walk on the treadmill daily at 10% incline some days an hour some days an hour and a half at 3 mph I don't hold on to the rail I hold a book or ipad in my hands, so I'd be burning 100 calories?
Ultimately - you'll have to use trial and error to come up with your own actual burns.
Using MY rule of thumb (which may or may not really be applicable to your situation) - more like 150-250 calories in 60-90 minutes (based on ~ 50 calories per mile)0 -
I have been told that walking at some incline is actually easier on the body, than walking without. The burn is higher and if it gives less chance of injury it is a win, win for me. I burn about 90 calories per 20 minute mile at an incline of 3.0
-
As a severely sight impaired person i hold on to the rail. My jaunty booty says it does count.0
-
I heard that 10000 steps burns 500 calories0
-
juggernaut1974 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".
Some of us do have balance or joint issues, you know. When I was younger and healthy, I could easily go without the rail. Now, it can really be a serious problem even at a slow speed due to balance issues from residual effects of a chronic condition that is not visible to the casual observer. Yes, I see the sidelong looks I get, but it's not worth injuring myself to save my pride. I still get a workout, I still burn calories, and it takes a lot more determination to keep going when you are dealing with daily pain and other things than when you aren't.0 -
pstegman888 wrote: »juggernaut1974 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".
Some of us do have balance or joint issues, you know. When I was younger and healthy, I could easily go without the rail. Now, it can really be a serious problem even at a slow speed due to balance issues from residual effects of a chronic condition that is not visible to the casual observer. Yes, I see the sidelong looks I get, but it's not worth injuring myself to save my pride. I still get a workout, I still burn calories, and it takes a lot more determination to keep going when you are dealing with daily pain and other things than when you aren't.
The point is that you would probably burn more calories at a lower incline without holding the rail. Unless you can't walk at all without holding it, obviously.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions