Tracking calories burnt on treadmill

thewindandthework
thewindandthework Posts: 531 Member
edited November 17 in Fitness and Exercise
Hi everyone! One of my goals is to run a 5k. I have a long way to go, but I'm building up and I'm proud of my progress.

The problem is that I don't know how to track my calories burnt when I use a treadmill. Obviously that doesn't affect my progression toward my running goal, but I would like to know what I'm burning so I can log it in MFP for my weight loss goal. For now I've just not been tracking my calories burnt on the treadmill at all, but I don't like that as a longer-term solution.

I don't trust the display on the treadmill itself--it asks my weight but nothing else about me, so I can't imagine it would be accurate.

What's the best way to know how many calories I'm burning with my treadmill walking and running?

I get the impression that a heart rate monitor might be the way to go. If that's right, do you have a recommendation? What should I look for when choosing one? I've tried Googling it, but frankly I get overwhelmed with all the information and advertisements.

Thanks for your advice!

Replies

  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Walking calories = your body weight in pounds * 1/3
    Running calories = your body weight in pounds * 2/3

    Your heart rate doesn't say how many calories you've burned, it says how your body reacted to the combination of exercise plus hydration plus your emotional state and other factors.
  • thewindandthework
    thewindandthework Posts: 531 Member
    edited April 2017
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Walking calories = your body weight in pounds * 1/3
    Running calories = your body weight in pounds * 2/3

    Interesting! How do time/distance work in there?

    Is it (bodyweight/3)=kcal burnt per mile? hour? running time of an average Barbra Streisand album?

    EDIT: If it really is just weight, then is the 'kcal burnt' display on my treadmill more accurate than I expect?
  • mcraw75
    mcraw75 Posts: 99 Member
    Add a cardiovascular exercise in MFP. There are several MPH options to choose from. Just search for walking and choose the MPH closest to what you walked. If you ran, choose running and the MPH. Then add the minutes you did the exercise.
  • jwills618
    jwills618 Posts: 12 Member
    I'd recommend a HR Monitor! I have a FitBit Blaze and really like it. I also have a chest strap HRM through my gym and have worn both during workouts to compare and the HR being tracked are consistently almost exactly the same!
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    thewindandthework wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Walking calories = your body weight in pounds * 1/3
    Running calories = your body weight in pounds * 2/3

    Interesting! How do time/distance work in there?

    Is it (bodyweight/3)=kcal burnt per mile? hour? running time of an average Barbra Streisand album?

    EDIT: If it really is just weight, then is the 'kcal burnt' display on my treadmill more accurate than I expect?

    Sorry, that should have been per mile.

    It takes a certain amount of energy to move a specific mass (weight) a particular distance. Running takes twice as much energy as walking because you're jumping from foot to foot instead of just shifting your weight forward. If you go at a slower pace, you'll burn the calories more slowly but you'll walk or run for longer so it evens out, you've still done the same amount of physical work.

    This isn't exact but it's close enough and to do better you need scientific instruments to measure how much oxygen you're breathing in and how much carbon dioxide you're breathing out.
  • need2belean
    need2belean Posts: 358 Member
    thewindandthework wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Walking calories = your body weight in pounds * 1/3
    Running calories = your body weight in pounds * 2/3

    Interesting! How do time/distance work in there?

    Is it (bodyweight/3)=kcal burnt per mile? hour? running time of an average Barbra Streisand album?

    EDIT: If it really is just weight, then is the 'kcal burnt' display on my treadmill more accurate than I expect?

    I recommend a chest strap heart rate monitor. They're more accurate with the heart rate than wrist strap ones but what heart rate monitor you get entirely depends on what you need (waterproof, gps, steps counted etc).
  • thewindandthework
    thewindandthework Posts: 531 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Sorry, that should have been per mile.
    Thanks for the clarification. That's very helpful info!
  • thewindandthework
    thewindandthework Posts: 531 Member
    What about activity trackers?

    I've been eyeing the Misfit Ray, which says it tracks calories, steps, distance, and sleep. Possibly worthwhile? Useless?
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited April 2017
    thewindandthework wrote: »
    What about activity trackers?

    I wouldn't bother. NorthCascades has given you the answer. HRMs and fitness trackers might give you a different answer but what he's said is meaningful enough for your needs.

    Fwiw I'm an ultrarunner. I never bother with HR for working out my calories. Always distance.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    need2belean wrote: »
    thewindandthework wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Walking calories = your body weight in pounds * 1/3
    Running calories = your body weight in pounds * 2/3

    Interesting! How do time/distance work in there?

    Is it (bodyweight/3)=kcal burnt per mile? hour? running time of an average Barbra Streisand album?

    EDIT: If it really is just weight, then is the 'kcal burnt' display on my treadmill more accurate than I expect?

    I recommend a chest strap heart rate monitor. They're more accurate with the heart rate than wrist strap ones but what heart rate monitor you get entirely depends on what you need (waterproof, gps, steps counted etc).

    All that will tell her is her pulse rate. That's useful for fitness purposes, but she wants to know how many calories she's burned, and an HRM won't do much better than a roll of the dice for that.
  • broseidonkingofbrocean
    broseidonkingofbrocean Posts: 180 Member
    Don't trust what the treadmill says or what this site tells you. What I would do is purchase a heart rate monitor possibly with a calorie tracker built in(will cost more). However you can buy a cheap one that doesn't track your calories.. you'll just have to do math to figure out how many you've burnt. Do a little googlefu and it should give you info on it.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

    Which I agree with heart rate monitors are the most accurate way of tracking calories burned.
  • thewindandthework
    thewindandthework Posts: 531 Member
    Thanks for your advice, everyone! I think for now I'm going to do the math myself based on distance, and compare that to the display on the treadmill. If it's pretty close I'll just go by the display.

    I'm still thinking about getting an activity tracker, but it's nice knowing that a heart rate monitor isn't necessary for my needs.

    Other opinions are still welcome!
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    I'm a runner so I love my garmin, but I've found that in terms of calorie burns its pretty close to the calculation mentioned above
  • ruqayyahsmum
    ruqayyahsmum Posts: 1,513 Member
    Sorry just asking cos i cant work it out

    So for walking is it your body weight x a third of your body weight per mile?
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    From what I understand, treadmill exercises are some of the best characterized calorie burns.

    Check out this link, and the references at the end.

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.shtml
  • ruqayyahsmum
    ruqayyahsmum Posts: 1,513 Member
    Or are we talking body weight x 0.33 per mile?
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    ruqayyahsmum wrote: »
    Or are we talking body weight x 0.33 per mile?

    Yes, this one. So if you weigh 150 pounds, you burn 50 calories per mile. Personally I think this is a little low, but not by much. It's a decent rule of thumb.
  • spiriteagle99
    spiriteagle99 Posts: 3,743 Member
    I use the mfp numbers and they work for me. I don't have to do any math that way, the program does it. I run at about 6 mph. So if I run 5 miles, it's 50 minutes. If I'm faster or doing elevation I'll burn a bit more, but the average works well.
  • MelanieCN77
    MelanieCN77 Posts: 4,047 Member
    The math is about right. I burn about 100 cals according to my Apple Watch if I run an 11-12 minute mile and I weigh 135.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    All you need is weight. The treadmill is as accurate as anything else. If you are running, it will likely overestimate by 15%-20%. That's as accurate as you can get.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    ruqayyahsmum wrote: »
    Sorry just asking cos i cant work it out

    So for walking is it your body weight x a third of your body weight per mile?

    For running bodyweight x 0.63 x distance in miles
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    ruqayyahsmum wrote: »
    Sorry just asking cos i cant work it out

    So for walking is it your body weight x a third of your body weight per mile?

    Yes
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    ruqayyahsmum wrote: »
    Sorry just asking cos i cant work it out

    So for walking is it your body weight x a third of your body weight per mile?

    For running bodyweight x 0.63 x distance in miles

    2/3 is 0.666... not 0.63.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    ruqayyahsmum wrote: »
    Sorry just asking cos i cant work it out

    So for walking is it your body weight x a third of your body weight per mile?

    For running bodyweight x 0.63 x distance in miles

    2/3 is 0.666... not 0.63.

    correct.

    the calculation i have seen for running calories burn uses 0.63 as far as i know.
  • thewindandthework
    thewindandthework Posts: 531 Member
    I used the formulas from upthread to calculate my walking and running calories last night, and ended up with about 100 fewer calories than the treadmill display told me, and FAR, FAR fewer calories than MFP suggested.

    I logged the numbers I calculated.
  • DamieBird
    DamieBird Posts: 651 Member
    Thank you for this formula! I used it, and compared to the treadmill, MFP, and S Health. It's a little lower than what the treadmill gave me, a fair amount lower than what S Health estimated (I thought that would be closer since I'm using a Gear S2 with heart rate), but within a few calories of what MFP estimated. Nice to have a reliable formula to fall back on!
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    So, I'm curious about this. I did 2 runs recently, both of 3K. Both were 5 mins run, 2 mins walk with 3 mins walking at either end for warmup and cooldown. Only difference is one was on the treadmill and one was outside.

    Garmin gave me 287 for the outside and 304 for the treadmill.

    The formula gives me 267.

    What impact does incline have? On the treadmill I'm at 1% incline and outside it is not perfectly level and I see an elevation gain of 6M.

    I'm thinking my watch is pretty damn close given the elevation/incline.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Tacklewasher wrote: »
    What impact does incline have?

    20 calories is lost in the noise, your error as a result of the run/ walk approach is probably more than that.

    Elevation does have an effect, but 1% on a treadmill is pointless.

    6 metres of elevation on a 3K run might give you a single figure increase in expenditure.
  • ashbabe25
    ashbabe25 Posts: 173 Member
    edited April 2017

    thewindandthework wrote: »
    What about activity trackers?

    I've been eyeing the Misfit Ray, which says it tracks calories, steps, distance, and sleep. Possibly worthwhile? Useless?

    I have a ray and I absolutely love it. It's small and lightweight and doesn't look like a fitness band. I really like the app as well. I got it for fitness but also because my sleeping habits are horrendous and it helps me keep track of that as well.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories