Working out calories burnt treadmill walking?

heartlessmf
heartlessmf Posts: 7 Member
edited November 21 in Fitness and Exercise
Some calorie calculators say 249 cals others 150 cals. 249 seems too much even though I'm pouring with sweat and knackered (very unhealthy with a life long aversion to exercise :-) ) I am doing this 3 times a day. Just wondering if someone could help please, as this is really doing my head in!

95kg, 45yrs, male, 3% incline, 5.5km per hour, 30 mins.

Replies

  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    Calories burned is a function of your weight and mileage covered. Standard formula is body weight (in pounds) times distance (in miles) times 0.31 (though this formula may be a bit conservative based on a study published last year).

    For your weight and that distance, you would have burned something in the neighborhood of 110 calories.
  • heartlessmf
    heartlessmf Posts: 7 Member
    OK, thanks for that. Appreciated.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    Calories burned is a function of your weight and mileage covered. Standard formula is body weight (in pounds) times distance (in miles) times 0.31 (though this formula may be a bit conservative based on a study published last year).

    For your weight and that distance, you would have burned something in the neighborhood of 110 calories.

    That only applies to walking on level ground. For incline treadmill walking, distance (and that formula) are useless.
  • heartlessmf
    heartlessmf Posts: 7 Member
    I think the cholesterol calculator that 'activity' does seems more in line, especially with what I've lost this week. Also its 5.3kmh instead of 5.5kmh if I'm honest! :-) 5.5's too much for me and burning approximately 450 cals a day is good enough for me.
  • huntersvonnegut
    huntersvonnegut Posts: 1,177 Member
    Approximately 185 calories burned net . That being only the amount your body uses only for that activity. About 235 calories gross. Total amount your body uses for that activity plus basal metabolism.
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    This is what I use, and I believe it has some basis in actual exercise science:

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/walking-calorie-burn-calculator.shtml
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    Azdak wrote: »
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    Calories burned is a function of your weight and mileage covered. Standard formula is body weight (in pounds) times distance (in miles) times 0.31 (though this formula may be a bit conservative based on a study published last year).

    For your weight and that distance, you would have burned something in the neighborhood of 110 calories.

    That only applies to walking on level ground. For incline treadmill walking, distance (and that formula) are useless.

    Agreed that the formula is useless on inclines but in this case, it's potentially canceled out as a treadmill set to a small incline mimics the effort of walking/running without treadmill assistance, no?
  • heartlessmf
    heartlessmf Posts: 7 Member
    Well that gives me a bit more motivation!!! Think I'll underestimate it as 150 and see how I go. Only been on this app a week and it feels like I'm eating more to keep up with my goal calories. Need to eat into my exercise calories now as I lost too much this week, although deep down I'm chuffed :-) Got my 30 yr old step son on it now as it should help with his, quite recent, diabetes diagnosis. Thanks for your replies, most helpful.
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    Jruzer wrote: »
    This is what I use, and I believe it has some basis in actual exercise science:

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

    Why do you believe it has a basis in science? So does the standard body weight X miles X 0.31 formula, or the newer (vsquared/height) * 0.029 * body weight formula developed by SMU last year.

    Though to be honest, I do think that all three get you to roughly the same place. The old standard formula says 110 calories, the newer one says 120 and the website you linked shows 180 (net).
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    Jruzer wrote: »
    This is what I use, and I believe it has some basis in actual exercise science:

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

    Why do you believe it has a basis in science? So does the standard body weight X miles X 0.31 formula, or the newer (vsquared/height) * 0.029 * body weight formula developed by SMU last year.

    Though to be honest, I do think that all three get you to roughly the same place. The old standard formula says 110 calories, the newer one says 120 and the website you linked shows 180 (net).

    Because of this information at the bottom:
    For a walking surface grade between -5% to +5% inclusive, this walking calorie burn calculator is based on equations (shown below) derived by ShapeSense.com from experimental data displayed in Figure 3 of the study titled "Energy Cost of Running," by R Margaria, P Cerretelli, P Aghemo, and G Sassi (note that the data on walking energy expenditure was originally printed in the study titled "Sulla fisiologia, e specialmente sul consumo energetico, della marcia e della corsa a varie velocita ed inclinazioni del terreno," by R. Margaria). The experimental data gathered by Margaria measured calorie burn of subjects walking at various speeds and on various surface grades. It was found that there is a non-linear relationship between walking speed and rate of calorie burn, as opposed to calorie burn while running, which displays a linear relationship between speed and rate of calorie burn.

    For a walking surface grade between +6% to +15% inclusive, this walking calorie burn calculator is based on the American College of Sports Medecine (ACSM) metabolic equation for walking oxygen consumption (i.e. VO2), with a subsequent conversion from VO2 to calorie burn included by ShapeSense.com. These equations are shown below.

    and
    References
    Margaria R, Cerretelli P, Aghemo P, Sassi G. Energy cost of running. J Appl Physiol. 1963 Mar;18:367-70.

    Margaria, R., 1938. Sulla fisiologia, e specialmente sul consumo energetico, della marcia e della corsa a varie velocita ed inclinazioni del terreno. Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Classe Sci. Fis. Mat. Nat. Serie VI 7, 299–368.

    American College of Sports Medecine: ACSM's Metabolic Calculations Handbook, 2007, Baltimore, MD. Also available online at: ACSM Metabolic Equations
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    Jruzer wrote: »
    Because of this information at the bottom:
    For a walking surface grade between -5% to +5% inclusive, this walking calorie burn calculator is based on equations (shown below) derived by ShapeSense.com from experimental data displayed in Figure 3 of the study titled "Energy Cost of Running," by R Margaria, P Cerretelli, P Aghemo, and G Sassi (note that the data on walking energy expenditure was originally printed in the study titled "Sulla fisiologia, e specialmente sul consumo energetico, della marcia e della corsa a varie velocita ed inclinazioni del terreno," by R. Margaria). The experimental data gathered by Margaria measured calorie burn of subjects walking at various speeds and on various surface grades. It was found that there is a non-linear relationship between walking speed and rate of calorie burn, as opposed to calorie burn while running, which displays a linear relationship between speed and rate of calorie burn.

    For a walking surface grade between +6% to +15% inclusive, this walking calorie burn calculator is based on the American College of Sports Medecine (ACSM) metabolic equation for walking oxygen consumption (i.e. VO2), with a subsequent conversion from VO2 to calorie burn included by ShapeSense.com. These equations are shown below.

    and
    References
    Margaria R, Cerretelli P, Aghemo P, Sassi G. Energy cost of running. J Appl Physiol. 1963 Mar;18:367-70.

    Margaria, R., 1938. Sulla fisiologia, e specialmente sul consumo energetico, della marcia e della corsa a varie velocita ed inclinazioni del terreno. Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Classe Sci. Fis. Mat. Nat. Serie VI 7, 299–368.

    American College of Sports Medecine: ACSM's Metabolic Calculations Handbook, 2007, Baltimore, MD. Also available online at: ACSM Metabolic Equations

    Got it, though the standard body weight X 0.3 formula was derived from "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, Cameron et al, Dec. 2004 and the newest vsquared/height *.029 * weight formula was derived from this article published last year: http://jap.physiology.org/content/120/5/481.long

    Note that the last study referenced showed that the ACSM formula was inaccurate (or at least proved that it was not as accurate as thought).

    Just goes to show that even the experts don't know the answer to this stuff!
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    Jruzer wrote: »
    Because of this information at the bottom:
    For a walking surface grade between -5% to +5% inclusive, this walking calorie burn calculator is based on equations (shown below) derived by ShapeSense.com from experimental data displayed in Figure 3 of the study titled "Energy Cost of Running," by R Margaria, P Cerretelli, P Aghemo, and G Sassi (note that the data on walking energy expenditure was originally printed in the study titled "Sulla fisiologia, e specialmente sul consumo energetico, della marcia e della corsa a varie velocita ed inclinazioni del terreno," by R. Margaria). The experimental data gathered by Margaria measured calorie burn of subjects walking at various speeds and on various surface grades. It was found that there is a non-linear relationship between walking speed and rate of calorie burn, as opposed to calorie burn while running, which displays a linear relationship between speed and rate of calorie burn.

    For a walking surface grade between +6% to +15% inclusive, this walking calorie burn calculator is based on the American College of Sports Medecine (ACSM) metabolic equation for walking oxygen consumption (i.e. VO2), with a subsequent conversion from VO2 to calorie burn included by ShapeSense.com. These equations are shown below.

    and
    References
    Margaria R, Cerretelli P, Aghemo P, Sassi G. Energy cost of running. J Appl Physiol. 1963 Mar;18:367-70.

    Margaria, R., 1938. Sulla fisiologia, e specialmente sul consumo energetico, della marcia e della corsa a varie velocita ed inclinazioni del terreno. Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Classe Sci. Fis. Mat. Nat. Serie VI 7, 299–368.

    American College of Sports Medecine: ACSM's Metabolic Calculations Handbook, 2007, Baltimore, MD. Also available online at: ACSM Metabolic Equations

    Got it, though the standard body weight X 0.3 formula was derived from "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise, Cameron et al, Dec. 2004 and the newest vsquared/height *.029 * weight formula was derived from this article published last year: http://jap.physiology.org/content/120/5/481.long

    Note that the last study referenced showed that the ACSM formula was inaccurate (or at least proved that it was not as accurate as thought).

    Just goes to show that even the experts don't know the answer to this stuff!

    For sure! There's no substitute for adjusting based on your actual results. I will have a look at your references.

    I use that calculator primarily for walking at an incline. I was training for a big backpacking trip, and one of my exercises was to walk on the treadmill at a 15% grade. I still do this exercise now. It's definitely more of a calorie burn than walking on a flat surface!

    For most of my "free" walking I just let Runkeeper figure it out and subtract 2 kcal/min for my baseline BMR/NEAT.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories