Burning the Calories you Eat..?!?
Options
Replies
-
Chunkahlunkah wrote: »No problem!
Be aware, though, that tools which measure calories burned are notorious for inflating the number. So if you're on a treadmill or whatever at the gym and it says you burned 500 calories, you likely burned less than that (maybe even only half). So to be on the safe side, you don't usually want to take that number too literally.
Hey @SkimpyMrsCarter I googled accuracy of calorie burn estimate for cardio equipment, and I saw an estimate that it can be off by 10-15%. I wanted to update bc that's significantly better than being off by up to 50%!
A quick google isn't much research though
so if anyone has more info about how to generally regard the burn estimate, I'd appreciate hearing it. 1 -
If you know the distance you ran or walked on the treadmill, and your weight, then double check using the normal formulas.
Run weight * distance (MI) *.63
Walk weight * distance (MI) *.30
The treadmill I run on at the comes pretty damn close to the above, so I don't know if it senses my weight or not. I go by my Garmin watch, which is also close. So 3 things give me about 400 cals for 5K2 -
Thanks @Tacklewasher!0
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »If you know the distance you ran or walked on the treadmill, and your weight, then double check using the normal formulas.
Run weight * distance (MI) *.63
Walk weight * distance (MI) *.30
The treadmill I run on at the comes pretty damn close to the above, so I don't know if it senses my weight or not. I go by my Garmin watch, which is also close. So 3 things give me about 400 cals for 5K
@Tacklewasher the formulas you use appear to attempt to calculate net calories burned.
The figure reported by most treadmills is gross calories burned which includes your calories for breathing and being alive.
The formulas you quote are blatantly incomplete in that they do not account for the speed of the activity, the terrain, and or adjust for any load you may be carrying.
They may serve as a gross sanity check but I would not rely on them for accuracy.
If you really would like a second opinion you may want to try something like:
https://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs2 -
Chunkahlunkah wrote: »Chunkahlunkah wrote: »No problem!
Be aware, though, that tools which measure calories burned are notorious for inflating the number. So if you're on a treadmill or whatever at the gym and it says you burned 500 calories, you likely burned less than that (maybe even only half). So to be on the safe side, you don't usually want to take that number too literally.
Hey @SkimpyMrsCarter I googled accuracy of calorie burn estimate for cardio equipment, and I saw an estimate that it can be off by 10-15%. I wanted to update bc that's significantly better than being off by up to 50%!
A quick google isn't much research though so if anyone has more info about how to generally regard the burn estimate, I'd appreciate hearing it.
Using a polar heart rate monitor, the calculations on the treadmill come close but are off a little for me. They are closer when I actually input all info ( age, weight etc ) and it can read my heart rate however most of the time just general calculations they are off as you said by about 10%2 -
oh, i did not know they measured gross. (being alive) ie, including the calories burned even if you weren't running. I input my weight 5 to 7 pounds less than my real weight, then i also knock off the total count at the end of the session.....ie, if the machine says i burned 455, i will assume that is closer to 400. im hoping that by doing both those things...it brings me a bit closer to reality. you have to know the machines at your gym also...they are not calibrated. 2 elliptical/ identical and side by side....one always gives me a higher count than the other.
2 -
chasetwins wrote: »Using a polar heart rate monitor, the calculations on the treadmill come close but are off a little for me. They are closer when I actually input all info ( age, weight etc ) and it can read my heart rate however most of the time just general calculations they are off as you said by about 10%
I'm glad you shared that bc I've been wondering how the equipment readings would compare with a heart rate monitor. I'm encouraged that it's not off all that much! About 10% isn't bad. I'd been thinking it was worse than that.
Good link, @PAV8888 , thanks!
2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »If you know the distance you ran or walked on the treadmill, and your weight, then double check using the normal formulas.
Run weight * distance (MI) *.63
Walk weight * distance (MI) *.30
The treadmill I run on at the comes pretty damn close to the above, so I don't know if it senses my weight or not. I go by my Garmin watch, which is also close. So 3 things give me about 400 cals for 5K
@Tacklewasher the formulas you use appear to attempt to calculate net calories burned.
The figure reported by most treadmills is gross calories burned which includes your calories for breathing and being alive.
The formulas you quote are blatantly incomplete in that they do not account for the speed of the activity, the terrain, and or adjust for any load you may be carrying.
They may serve as a gross sanity check but I would not rely on them for accuracy.
If you really would like a second opinion you may want to try something like:
https://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
Speed has no impact on the amount of calories burned but you are right the gradient would do.
1 -
One thing that has me confused with HRMs is how they can be used to determine calories burned. A 6ft man weighing 180 pounds walking at 3 miles per hour is likely to have a much lower heart rate than a 5ft woman that is 180 pounds walking at the same speed but in theory they will burn the same calories.
I realise the example is very generic and that in real life the woman could be far fitter than the man and so the situation could be reversed.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »If you know the distance you ran or walked on the treadmill, and your weight, then double check using the normal formulas.
Run weight * distance (MI) *.63
Walk weight * distance (MI) *.30
The treadmill I run on at the comes pretty damn close to the above, so I don't know if it senses my weight or not. I go by my Garmin watch, which is also close. So 3 things give me about 400 cals for 5K
@Tacklewasher the formulas you use appear to attempt to calculate net calories burned.
The figure reported by most treadmills is gross calories burned which includes your calories for breathing and being alive.
The formulas you quote are blatantly incomplete in that they do not account for the speed of the activity, the terrain, and or adjust for any load you may be carrying.
They may serve as a gross sanity check but I would not rely on them for accuracy.
If you really would like a second opinion you may want to try something like:
https://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
Speed has no impact on the amount of calories burned but you are right the gradient would do.
Umm, beg to differ here. All you have to do is look at the exertion between running (jogging) at, say 5 mph and running hard at 11-12 mph. There is no question as to the fact that it takes more force over less time (work, or energy) to move the same mass. That is more energy. Since calories are a unit measurement of energy, speed has to have an effect.
[ETA - BTW, the same concept applies to a gradient. You add the work that your body does to move itself against gravity. Energy (or calories) must increase]3 -
Silentpadna wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »If you know the distance you ran or walked on the treadmill, and your weight, then double check using the normal formulas.
Run weight * distance (MI) *.63
Walk weight * distance (MI) *.30
The treadmill I run on at the comes pretty damn close to the above, so I don't know if it senses my weight or not. I go by my Garmin watch, which is also close. So 3 things give me about 400 cals for 5K
@Tacklewasher the formulas you use appear to attempt to calculate net calories burned.
The figure reported by most treadmills is gross calories burned which includes your calories for breathing and being alive.
The formulas you quote are blatantly incomplete in that they do not account for the speed of the activity, the terrain, and or adjust for any load you may be carrying.
They may serve as a gross sanity check but I would not rely on them for accuracy.
If you really would like a second opinion you may want to try something like:
https://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
Speed has no impact on the amount of calories burned but you are right the gradient would do.
Umm, beg to differ here. All you have to do is look at the exertion between running (jogging) at, say 5 mph and running hard at 11-12 mph. There is no question as to the fact that it takes more force over less time (work, or energy) to move the same mass. That is more energy. Since calories are a unit measurement of energy, speed has to have an effect.
[ETA - BTW, the same concept applies to a gradient. You add the work that your body does to move itself against gravity. Energy (or calories) must increase]
The rate of calorie burn is at a greater rate but you are running for half the time!!
1 -
Here is one source for the formulas I presented. I agree that gradient matters and it seems speed does make a difference for walking, once you are past 5 mph. Speed doesn't really matter for running since it takes less time to run the mile faster, but the burn per mile will be the same.
https://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Here is one source for the formulas I presented. I agree that gradient matters and it seems speed does make a difference for walking, once you are past 5 mph. Speed doesn't really matter for running since it takes less time to run the mile faster, but the burn per mile will be the same.
https://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning
That relates to use on a treadmill though so not really relevant to the formula0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions