Accurate Treadmill 'Calories Burned'

ksmccoy
ksmccoy Posts: 12
edited September 30 in Fitness and Exercise
I'm wondering how accurate my treadmill is when it gives my calories burned after a workout. When I see other people's exercise for the day it seems like my calories burned are quite different....HELP?

Replies

  • CardiacNP
    CardiacNP Posts: 554 Member
    I find machines to often over estimate my calories burned. I use a HRM. Feel like i get a more ture reflection of my burn
  • summertime_girl
    summertime_girl Posts: 3,945 Member
    It's so far over for me that it's ridiculous. I bought a BodyBugg, and can get an accurate read of my calories burned that way.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    I find machines to often over estimate my calories burned. I use a HRM. Feel like i get a more ture reflection of my burn

    Ditto
  • kblue2007
    kblue2007 Posts: 2,564 Member
    Do you enter your weight? If so, I would say its probably accurate within 10%-15%...I usually take that number and subtract about 13% from it.....
  • tgumeebee
    tgumeebee Posts: 43 Member
    I walk on the treadmill for 3 minutes at 3.5 mph.. 4.5 mph for 42 minutes..and 4.0 mph for 2 minutes which equals an average of 425 per session. Everyone I have spoke with says this is pretty close to what a heart monitor would say. IDK that for a fact though.
  • Foshie
    Foshie Posts: 5 Member
    I've had the same problem myself when it comes to gym equipment. I think because there are so many differences that are available by changing the resistance or having slight fluctuations in the speed that you exercise, its probably best to just stick to whatever reading you get and be happy with it . As long as you are doing some aerobic exercise each day, that's the main thing to take into account :)
  • Flyntiggr
    Flyntiggr Posts: 898 Member
    I wear my HRM when I run, and also set my dreadmill. The dreadmill is ALWAYS high compared to my monitor.
  • donbet69
    donbet69 Posts: 133
    I was given this helpful link. I find it rather accurate against what my HRM tells me.

    http://42.195km.net/e/treadsim/
  • sculptandtone
    sculptandtone Posts: 300 Member
    Two problems with the machines. One is that they WAY overestimate the burn....an average of 30% for most people I've read. Second is that they do not deduct the calories you'd have burned if you were sitting around watching tv.

    So....even though people don't want to hear this....many times what the machines tell you is as much as 50% over!
    Get an HRM. My "calories burned" has gone down by a good 300-400 a day by using an HRM. Depressing, but accurate. I'd rather deal with the truth.
  • kentlass
    kentlass Posts: 325 Member
    my treadmill way overcalculates

    i was logging over 1500cals for some workouts as that was what my treadmill was tellin me, when i got a HRM i was absolutely gutted to find out that the treadmill was HUNDREDS of calories higher than my actual burn

    if you're worried i'd definitely invest in a HRM
  • jeffpettis
    jeffpettis Posts: 865 Member
    Every machine I have ever been on is really low! I can ride a stationary bike for 30 minutes @ 18-20 mph and the bike will say 180 calories give or take and my hrm will say 300 calories. MFP is always lower than my hrm as well, this morning I did 55 minutes circuit training, my hrm said 779 calories and MFP said something like 615 calories. I always just enter something in between what my hrm says and what MFP says, it works for me.
  • sculptandtone
    sculptandtone Posts: 300 Member
    Every machine I have ever been on is really low! I can ride a stationary bike for 30 minutes @ 18-20 mph and the bike will say 180 calories give or take and my hrm will say 300 calories. MFP is always lower than my hrm as well, this morning I did 55 minutes circuit training, my hrm said 779 calories and MFP said something like 615 calories. I always just enter something in between what my hrm says and what MFP says, it works for me.

    You may want to see if you can try another HRM. Those calorie burns seem impossibly high. I know everyone is different, but wowza, those are HUGE.
  • bassettpig
    bassettpig Posts: 79 Member
    Try this link

    http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

    to calculate your running and walking calories per mile. It has a good explanation of why they are different from each other and I find it to be almost EXACTLY right, using my HRM.
  • schobert101
    schobert101 Posts: 218 Member
    I must be one of the rare ones. I wore my HRM today on the treadmill at the gym and they were within 4 calories of each other and it also correlates with what MFP gives me from the database as well.
  • Starkle09
    Starkle09 Posts: 238 Member
    I find that my treadmill is terrible inaccurate. it generally calculates at least 100 calories more in a 30 minute run.
  • jeffpettis
    jeffpettis Posts: 865 Member
    Every machine I have ever been on is really low! I can ride a stationary bike for 30 minutes @ 18-20 mph and the bike will say 180 calories give or take and my hrm will say 300 calories. MFP is always lower than my hrm as well, this morning I did 55 minutes circuit training, my hrm said 779 calories and MFP said something like 615 calories. I always just enter something in between what my hrm says and what MFP says, it works for me.

    You may want to see if you can try another HRM. Those calorie burns seem impossibly high. I know everyone is different, but wowza, those are HUGE.

    I have been going by the same hrm for 3 months, and losing what I should or more, so I think it must be pretty close.

    Here's a calorie burn calculator that I found a while ago, I'm sure it's not 100% accurate, but it says I should have burned about 730 calories in 55 minutes if my average heart rate was 138 bpm, and it's not uncommon for my hr to stay between 135-150 for the 50 minutes to an hour I am working out. Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but a 35 year old male will burn almost twice as many calories during the same 60 minute workout, with the same hr, as say a 40 year old female. I'm not sure why, I have just seen it happen.

    http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm
  • BCKS
    BCKS Posts: 287 Member
    I was given this helpful link. I find it rather accurate against what my HRM tells me.

    http://42.195km.net/e/treadsim/

    This link is pretty cool! Thanks for sharing it. :smile:
  • Motorgirl6
    Motorgirl6 Posts: 14
    I was given this helpful link. I find it rather accurate against what my HRM tells me.

    http://42.195km.net/e/treadsim/

    This link is pretty cool! Thanks for sharing it. :smile:

    I am not sure what is accurate. My treadmill states for a 20 minute walk it is 96 cals burned, but this site says over 200 cals. Any ideas?
  • Qarol
    Qarol Posts: 6,171 Member
    Everything I've read says those trackers on the machines are grossly inaccurate.

    But I, too, question some of my friends calories burned for what they do. I'm thinking, really? That much for that?
  • tihi18
    tihi18 Posts: 102 Member
    I think it depends. My machine asks for me weight, which is 163 and when I run at 6.3 I burn about 300 calories in 22 minutes. I think this might be accurate. If you burn 100 calories per mile you walk(assuming leisurely) then I would think running your calorie burn is going to be a lot higher. Anyone it depends on the machine. I think the rule of thumb is 100 calories per mile. So if I run 2.5 miles I just log 250 calories to be safe.
  • tihi18
    tihi18 Posts: 102 Member
    Oops didn't mean to resurrect an old thread. Didn't notice the post date...
This discussion has been closed.

Categories