I'm working harder but burning fewer calories?
kczemerys
Posts: 11 Member
I don't understand how the treadmil is calculating my burned calories and distance. I've been keeping the same incline and speed, just increasing the amount of run time vs walk time in a 30 minute workout.(walking at 3.5 mph, running at 4.5 mph, and sprinting at 5.5mph)
See images
1st image - ran for 10 mins, walked for 20 mins
2nd image - ran for 11 mins, walked for 19 mins
3rd image - Sprinted for 1 min, ran for 12 mins, walked for 17 mins
4th image - Sprinted for 1.5 mins, ran for 14 mins, walked for 15 mins
See images
1st image - ran for 10 mins, walked for 20 mins
2nd image - ran for 11 mins, walked for 19 mins
3rd image - Sprinted for 1 min, ran for 12 mins, walked for 17 mins
4th image - Sprinted for 1.5 mins, ran for 14 mins, walked for 15 mins
0
Replies
-
Both the distance and the calories burned are increasing in each image (as you are working harder). What are you confused about?9
-
Let me see if I can explain. All of this is done in a 30 min time frame. Whatever I cant run, I walk the rest of the time.
I ran one minute more on day 2 (11 mins) and burned 13 more calories and went .12 miles further.
But how come when I ran for 6 mins more on day 5 (16 mins total), I only burned 11more calories and went 0.08 miles further?
On day 5,shouldn't I burn 65 calories more and go 0.6 miles further?0 -
Do you have to input your weight and age? Did either of those change?0
-
Which is day 5? Which is day 1? I’m not sure I’m following either? These numbers all seem fine to m.
But when you run a minute instead of walking it, you will only increase your mileage/calories/etc by the difference between what you burned when you were walking them vs what you’re doing now that you’re running. So you’re running for 11 more, but walking 11 less.
And the one minute jump in calories and distance seems quite large. Meaning, I woouldnt use that as your proxy for what every minute of running should gain.
As an example, I burn 4-5 calories/minute when I’m walking. I burn 8 when I’m running and maybe 9 when I’m sprinting.
I’m only burning 3-5 calories more when I run (or sprint) for a minute instead of walking.
Your specific numbers will depend on how much you weigh, but 13 calories for one minute for just the amount over and above what you burned walking is...very high.2 -
You could probably work out the math if it was really that important to you, but my guess is that the difference in distance covered and calories burned sprinting vs jogging vs walking isn't as great as you think it is, especially over relatively short periods of time (like 1 minute).2
-
you're talking about distances of 0.1 miles run instead of walked... how many calories do you think you're burning in 0.1 miles?5
-
I undetstand running one minute more from one session on the treadmill to the next will not make a huge impact on calories burned and distance traveled. What I don't understand is why did I travel 0.12 miles more and burn 13 calories more going from running 10 to 11 minutes but only went 0.01 miles more and burned 0.6 calories more going from 15 to 16 minutes of running.
The math isn't adding up.
I did not imput anything like my height or weight into the treadmill.0 -
Estimation of calories burned from running/jogging/walking = body weight * .63 * distance in miles. (calculation to be used for no incline. Adding incline would increase calories burned, but is also a much more complicated formula) Amount of effort/speed does not impact calories burned, only amount of time required to burn those calories.
Using that calculation, you would only burn 65 calories in .6 miles if you weighed ~172 lbs.1 -
I undetstand running one minute more from one session on the treadmill to the next will not make a huge impact on calories burned and distance traveled. What I don't understand is why did I travel 0.12 miles more and burn 13 calories more going from running 10 to 11 minutes but only went 0.01 miles more and burned 0.6 calories more going from 15 to 16 minutes of running.
The math isn't adding up.
I did not imput anything like my height or weight into the treadmill.
Did you use the HR sensors?1 -
Yes, but only very briefly.0
-
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Estimation of calories burned from running/jogging/walking = body weight * .63 * distance in miles. (calculation to be used for no incline. Adding incline would increase calories burned, but is also a much more complicated formula) Amount of effort/speed does not impact calories burned, only amount of time required to burn those calories.
Using that calculation, you would only burn 65 calories in .6 miles if you weighed ~172 lbs.
Not taking into account speed doesn't make sense to me because then 30 minutes of walking vs 30 minutes of running would then burn the same amount of calories.0 -
You're overthinking this big time. All of this is just estimation and the variations you're talking about are pretty inconsequential. It may or may not be off by several calories, but not a whole lot. You're going to drown in that kind of minutia.8
-
Yes, but only very briefly.
That could be part of the reason why. HR is highly variable and, assuming the treadmill uses HR as part of it's calorie burn formula, can easily account for high degrees of discrepancy.
I'm not sure why the distances would be off, but I'm guessing the machines simply aren't as exact/precise as you want them to be.1 -
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Estimation of calories burned from running/jogging/walking = body weight * .63 * distance in miles. (calculation to be used for no incline. Adding incline would increase calories burned, but is also a much more complicated formula) Amount of effort/speed does not impact calories burned, only amount of time required to burn those calories.
Using that calculation, you would only burn 65 calories in .6 miles if you weighed ~172 lbs.
Not taking into account speed doesn't make sense to me because then 30 minutes of walking vs 30 minutes of running would then burn the same amount of calories.
No it wouldn't0 -
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Estimation of calories burned from running/jogging/walking = body weight * .63 * distance in miles. (calculation to be used for no incline. Adding incline would increase calories burned, but is also a much more complicated formula) Amount of effort/speed does not impact calories burned, only amount of time required to burn those calories.
Using that calculation, you would only burn 65 calories in .6 miles if you weighed ~172 lbs.
Not taking into account speed doesn't make sense to me because then 30 minutes of walking vs 30 minutes of running would then burn the same amount of calories.
It's accounted for in the distance you cover.
Walking for 30 minutes = 1.5 miles (for sake of conversation)
Running for 30 minutes = 3 miles (again, for sake of this conversation)
Speed is accounted for because you cover more distance.
Alternatively, if you cover 2 miles in 20 minutes vs that same 2 miles in 45 minutes... speed is accounted for by the change in duration/time.4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »You're overthinking this big time. All of this is just estimation and the variations you're talking about are pretty inconsequential. It may or may not be off by several calories, but not a whole lot. You're going to drown in that kind of minutia.
This, a thousand times this.
Pick a number and use it. I sometimes used treadmill numbers, I had a HRM for a while. I used averages of several online calculators....blah blah blah.
The numbers are smaller than I would like. If I use an electronic device it's not going to be accurate. Pick a number and use it.
All of this is estimation. Guess what else? You aren't calculating your calories eaten exactly either. It's not a perfect process and close enough is good enough.4 -
Yes, but only very briefly.
That could be part of the reason why. HR is highly variable and, assuming the treadmill uses HR as part of it's calorie burn formula, can easily account for high degrees of discrepancy.
I'm not sure why the distances would be off, but I'm guessing the machines simply aren't as exact/precise as you want them to be.
Now THIS makes sense to me, thank you.0 -
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Estimation of calories burned from running/jogging/walking = body weight * .63 * distance in miles. (calculation to be used for no incline. Adding incline would increase calories burned, but is also a much more complicated formula) Amount of effort/speed does not impact calories burned, only amount of time required to burn those calories.
Using that calculation, you would only burn 65 calories in .6 miles if you weighed ~172 lbs.
Not taking into account speed doesn't make sense to me because then 30 minutes of walking vs 30 minutes of running would then burn the same amount of calories.
It's accounted for in the distance you cover.
Walking for 30 minutes = 1.5 miles (for sake of conversation)
Running for 30 minutes = 3 miles (again, for sake of this conversation)
Speed is accounted for because you cover more distance.
Alternatively, if you cover 2 miles in 20 minutes vs that same 2 miles in 45 minutes... speed is accounted for by the change in duration/time.
^ This guy gets it. Again, these are all estimations to get you in the approximate range. Nothing will be exact.1 -
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Cassandraw3 wrote: »Estimation of calories burned from running/jogging/walking = body weight * .63 * distance in miles. (calculation to be used for no incline. Adding incline would increase calories burned, but is also a much more complicated formula) Amount of effort/speed does not impact calories burned, only amount of time required to burn those calories.
Using that calculation, you would only burn 65 calories in .6 miles if you weighed ~172 lbs.
Not taking into account speed doesn't make sense to me because then 30 minutes of walking vs 30 minutes of running would then burn the same amount of calories.
It's accounted for in the distance you cover.
Walking for 30 minutes = 1.5 miles (for sake of conversation)
Running for 30 minutes = 3 miles (again, for sake of this conversation)
Speed is accounted for because you cover more distance.
Alternatively, if you cover 2 miles in 20 minutes vs that same 2 miles in 45 minutes... speed is accounted for by the change in duration/time.
^ This guy gets it. Again, these are all estimations to get you in the approximate range. Nothing will be exact.
Yes, that makes sense. What hasn't been making sense is if I know I travel further yet the treadmill says I havent. It must be the machine's inaccuracy.0 -
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Cassandraw3 wrote: »Estimation of calories burned from running/jogging/walking = body weight * .63 * distance in miles. (calculation to be used for no incline. Adding incline would increase calories burned, but is also a much more complicated formula) Amount of effort/speed does not impact calories burned, only amount of time required to burn those calories.
Using that calculation, you would only burn 65 calories in .6 miles if you weighed ~172 lbs.
Not taking into account speed doesn't make sense to me because then 30 minutes of walking vs 30 minutes of running would then burn the same amount of calories.
It's accounted for in the distance you cover.
Walking for 30 minutes = 1.5 miles (for sake of conversation)
Running for 30 minutes = 3 miles (again, for sake of this conversation)
Speed is accounted for because you cover more distance.
Alternatively, if you cover 2 miles in 20 minutes vs that same 2 miles in 45 minutes... speed is accounted for by the change in duration/time.
^ This guy gets it. Again, these are all estimations to get you in the approximate range. Nothing will be exact.
Yes, that makes sense. What hasn't been making sense is if I know I travel further yet the treadmill says I havent. It must be the machine's inaccuracy.
I bet it's an accuracy/calibration issue with the treadmill. Could also be differences in accuracy/calibration if you're not using the same treadmill each workout.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »You're overthinking this big time. All of this is just estimation and the variations you're talking about are pretty inconsequential. It may or may not be off by several calories, but not a whole lot. You're going to drown in that kind of minutia.
This, a thousand times this.
Pick a number and use it. I sometimes used treadmill numbers, I had a HRM for a while. I used averages of several online calculators....blah blah blah.
The numbers are smaller than I would like. If I use an electronic device it's not going to be accurate. Pick a number and use it.
All of this is estimation. Guess what else? You aren't calculating your calories eaten exactly either. It's not a perfect process and close enough is good enough.
Different strokes for different folks. Ive never really understood fitness math and because of that I've never been able to obtain the physique i desired. I am hoping to learn basics so i can start improving. Plus, it's motivating to see every time i go for a run I imrove. If I'm burning the same amount running as I am walking, what's the motivation to run? That's how I think, its not for everyone.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »You're overthinking this big time. All of this is just estimation and the variations you're talking about are pretty inconsequential. It may or may not be off by several calories, but not a whole lot. You're going to drown in that kind of minutia.
This, a thousand times this.
Pick a number and use it. I sometimes used treadmill numbers, I had a HRM for a while. I used averages of several online calculators....blah blah blah.
The numbers are smaller than I would like. If I use an electronic device it's not going to be accurate. Pick a number and use it.
All of this is estimation. Guess what else? You aren't calculating your calories eaten exactly either. It's not a perfect process and close enough is good enough.
Different strokes for different folks. Ive never really understood fitness math and because of that I've never been able to obtain the physique i desired. I am hoping to learn basics so i can start improving. Plus, it's motivating to see every time i go for a run I imrove. If I'm burning the same amount running as I am walking, what's the motivation to run? That's how I think, its not for everyone.
Stop exercising for the calorie burn.
Set fitness goals.
Calorie deficit to lose weight.
Lift to change your body composition6 -
cmriverside wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »You're overthinking this big time. All of this is just estimation and the variations you're talking about are pretty inconsequential. It may or may not be off by several calories, but not a whole lot. You're going to drown in that kind of minutia.
This, a thousand times this.
Pick a number and use it. I sometimes used treadmill numbers, I had a HRM for a while. I used averages of several online calculators....blah blah blah.
The numbers are smaller than I would like. If I use an electronic device it's not going to be accurate. Pick a number and use it.
All of this is estimation. Guess what else? You aren't calculating your calories eaten exactly either. It's not a perfect process and close enough is good enough.
Different strokes for different folks. Ive never really understood fitness math and because of that I've never been able to obtain the physique i desired. I am hoping to learn basics so i can start improving. Plus, it's motivating to see every time i go for a run I imrove. If I'm burning the same amount running as I am walking, what's the motivation to run? That's how I think, its not for everyone.
Like you said, everyone is different. The motivation could be burning the same amount of calories (going the same distance) in a shorter amount of time. Or, what it seems you are already doing, going a further distance in the same amount of time. Both show improvement.
And fitness math is complicated if you are referring to amount of calories burned. No one understands it to an exact science. It is all just estimations.1 -
cmriverside wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »You're overthinking this big time. All of this is just estimation and the variations you're talking about are pretty inconsequential. It may or may not be off by several calories, but not a whole lot. You're going to drown in that kind of minutia.
This, a thousand times this.
Pick a number and use it. I sometimes used treadmill numbers, I had a HRM for a while. I used averages of several online calculators....blah blah blah.
The numbers are smaller than I would like. If I use an electronic device it's not going to be accurate. Pick a number and use it.
All of this is estimation. Guess what else? You aren't calculating your calories eaten exactly either. It's not a perfect process and close enough is good enough.
Different strokes for different folks. Ive never really understood fitness math and because of that I've never been able to obtain the physique i desired. I am hoping to learn basics so i can start improving. Plus, it's motivating to see every time i go for a run I imrove. If I'm burning the same amount running as I am walking, what's the motivation to run? That's how I think, its not for everyone.
That's not what I was saying.
Yes, you burn more calories running for the same amount of time because you are moving a mass (your body) over a distance in a set number of minutes. So it's time, distance, and body weight.
And absolutely it gets easier as you become more adapted. You also burn fewer calories as you get smaller, so there's that.
What I was saying is, sure, it would be great to get exactitude, but it's not possible - so just use the numbers, log your food, weigh your body, adjust as results suggest. This is not an exact science and you'll make yourself nuts trying to make it an exact science. We all have to do the same experiment and since the body is a dynamic system, so is the moving target of weight.
1 -
cmriverside wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »You're overthinking this big time. All of this is just estimation and the variations you're talking about are pretty inconsequential. It may or may not be off by several calories, but not a whole lot. You're going to drown in that kind of minutia.
This, a thousand times this.
Pick a number and use it. I sometimes used treadmill numbers, I had a HRM for a while. I used averages of several online calculators....blah blah blah.
The numbers are smaller than I would like. If I use an electronic device it's not going to be accurate. Pick a number and use it.
All of this is estimation. Guess what else? You aren't calculating your calories eaten exactly either. It's not a perfect process and close enough is good enough.
Different strokes for different folks. Ive never really understood fitness math and because of that I've never been able to obtain the physique i desired. I am hoping to learn basics so i can start improving. Plus, it's motivating to see every time i go for a run I imrove. If I'm burning the same amount running as I am walking, what's the motivation to run? That's how I think, its not for everyone.
I think there is a fundamental disconnect somewhere... but I can't quite put my finger on where.
Exercising for physique is fine... but make sure you are doing appropriate exercise for your goals, and that that exercise/goal is supported by your diet.
And whether or not you're burning the same walking vs running depends on whether or not you are changing other variables in your workout. Walk a set distance vs run that same distance... calorie burns will be very similar. Walk a set time vs run the same time, calorie burns will be pretty different.
Lastly, "fitness math" is not difficult, at least not conceptually. Accuracy and exactness is an impossibility, though (at least with the tools most of us have available to us). So if you're trying to be accurate and exact, it's a losing battle. Be good enough, and in most cases, MFP is good enough to be good enough.0 -
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Estimation of calories burned from running/jogging/walking = body weight * .63 * distance in miles. (calculation to be used for no incline. Adding incline would increase calories burned, but is also a much more complicated formula) Amount of effort/speed does not impact calories burned, only amount of time required to burn those calories.
Using that calculation, you would only burn 65 calories in .6 miles if you weighed ~172 lbs.
Not taking into account speed doesn't make sense to me because then 30 minutes of walking vs 30 minutes of running would then burn the same amount of calories.
No, because you're going to cover a greater distance running for 30 minutes than you are walking 30 minutes...the calories you burn have more to do with mass moved over distance than the speed at which you move that mass.3 -
Running does burn more calories per mile than walking. .almost a factor of 2. (0.6_ vs 0.3_)x (wt in lbs)x (miles). Plus you cover about double the distance in the same amount of time (depending on your running speed).
But you'd probably enjoy it more if you concentrated on fitness-based goals versus the calorie burn numbers.4 -
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Cassandraw3 wrote: »Estimation of calories burned from running/jogging/walking = body weight * .63 * distance in miles. (calculation to be used for no incline. Adding incline would increase calories burned, but is also a much more complicated formula) Amount of effort/speed does not impact calories burned, only amount of time required to burn those calories.
Using that calculation, you would only burn 65 calories in .6 miles if you weighed ~172 lbs.
Not taking into account speed doesn't make sense to me because then 30 minutes of walking vs 30 minutes of running would then burn the same amount of calories.
It's accounted for in the distance you cover.
Walking for 30 minutes = 1.5 miles (for sake of conversation)
Running for 30 minutes = 3 miles (again, for sake of this conversation)
Speed is accounted for because you cover more distance.
Alternatively, if you cover 2 miles in 20 minutes vs that same 2 miles in 45 minutes... speed is accounted for by the change in duration/time.
^ This guy gets it. Again, these are all estimations to get you in the approximate range. Nothing will be exact.
Yes, that makes sense. What hasn't been making sense is if I know I travel further yet the treadmill says I havent. It must be the machine's inaccuracy.
In addition to Hr and poor calibration contributing to possible discrepancies, also factor in the number of times the motor sped up or slowed down (my TM is not very fast with this so longer periods at one speed or another vs frequent changes between the two will result in slightly different distances even though the amount of time spent at each speed is “the same”), and also consider if you really hit the buttons at exactly the same Time-if You were a few seconds early or late to speed up or slow down-again that will cause a difference.
Those differences are pretty minuscule-but More than enough to account for the kinds of differences you’re questioning.
1 -
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Estimation of calories burned from running/jogging/walking = body weight * .63 * distance in miles. (calculation to be used for no incline. Adding incline would increase calories burned, but is also a much more complicated formula) Amount of effort/speed does not impact calories burned, only amount of time required to burn those calories.
Using that calculation, you would only burn 65 calories in .6 miles if you weighed ~172 lbs.
Not taking into account speed doesn't make sense to me because then 30 minutes of walking vs 30 minutes of running would then burn the same amount of calories.
You will burn x number of calories moving your body 1 mile weather you walk or run. The difference is, if you run twice as fast as you walk, you can burn the same number of calories in half the time.
That is the difference.
plus running is more fun...
3 -
FYI- Here are the formulas:
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions