Question about cals burned on treadmill.
alung2k3
Posts: 81 Member
Hi all.
Just some slight confusion on my part. I run daily on the treadmill and afterwards the machine estimates I burned approx 400 - 500 cals.
I've heard a general rule been thrown around in the forums of only logging half of the predicted burn. Is that correct or do people mean MFP's prediction?
If it helps, I run on a Matrix treadmill. Before you start they do ask for your current weight.
Thanks.
Just some slight confusion on my part. I run daily on the treadmill and afterwards the machine estimates I burned approx 400 - 500 cals.
I've heard a general rule been thrown around in the forums of only logging half of the predicted burn. Is that correct or do people mean MFP's prediction?
If it helps, I run on a Matrix treadmill. Before you start they do ask for your current weight.
Thanks.
0
Replies
-
People here often suggest logging only half the calories if the calories stated seem unusually high, or if their goal is weight loss as a priority. If your machine calculates closely, there is really no need to do that.
Studies show that weight x distance in miles x .63 = net calories burned running. Walking is a bit more than half that number. If your treadmill logs miles correctly you can simply do the math and figure out a realistic calorie burn. Some machines will give you gross calorie burn estimates, and that alone can skew the numbers.1 -
Robert has a good idea: check to see if the weight x distance x .63 gives you the same result. I use MFPs numbers and eat back all the calories rather than half because the formula works for me. If anything, it's a bit low, because I do use incline on the TM and run in a hilly area outside, but it's close enough to make up for any inaccuracies in my logging.0
-
robertw486 wrote: »People here often suggest logging only half the calories if the calories stated seem unusually high, or if their goal is weight loss as a priority. If your machine calculates closely, there is really no need to do that.
Studies show that weight x distance in miles x .63 = net calories burned running. Walking is a bit more than half that number. If your treadmill logs miles correctly you can simply do the math and figure out a realistic calorie burn. Some machines will give you gross calorie burn estimates, and that alone can skew the numbers.
This, though it might be a bit less on a treadmill as you're not propelling yourself forward. On the other hand this equation could have been derived from treadmill observations. Hmm...0 -
Is the weight in lbs or KG?0
-
-
robertw486 wrote: »People here often suggest logging only half the calories if the calories stated seem unusually high, or if their goal is weight loss as a priority. If your machine calculates closely, there is really no need to do that.
Studies show that weight x distance in miles x .63 = net calories burned running. Walking is a bit more than half that number. If your treadmill logs miles correctly you can simply do the math and figure out a realistic calorie burn. Some machines will give you gross calorie burn estimates, and that alone can skew the numbers.
This, though it might be a bit less on a treadmill as you're not propelling yourself forward. On the other hand this equation could have been derived from treadmill observations. Hmm...
If you weren't propelling yourself forward on a treadmill you'd fall off the back. I don't get that statement. What do you suppose, you are moving your legs but it isn't propelling you forward?
Seems like it would be more complicated than weight x distance x .63, depending on if you were full out running or jogging or if you were on an incline of any kind, etc. I don't know, do people run at an incline? I mostly walk on the treadmill, I occasionally sprint for HIIT, but no long runs.2 -
ExistingFish wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »People here often suggest logging only half the calories if the calories stated seem unusually high, or if their goal is weight loss as a priority. If your machine calculates closely, there is really no need to do that.
Studies show that weight x distance in miles x .63 = net calories burned running. Walking is a bit more than half that number. If your treadmill logs miles correctly you can simply do the math and figure out a realistic calorie burn. Some machines will give you gross calorie burn estimates, and that alone can skew the numbers.
This, though it might be a bit less on a treadmill as you're not propelling yourself forward. On the other hand this equation could have been derived from treadmill observations. Hmm...
If you weren't propelling yourself forward on a treadmill you'd fall off the back. I don't get that statement. What do you suppose, you are moving your legs but it isn't propelling you forward?
Seems like it would be more complicated than weight x distance x .63, depending on if you were full out running or jogging or if you were on an incline of any kind, etc. I don't know, do people run at an incline? I mostly walk on the treadmill, I occasionally sprint for HIIT, but no long runs.
The belt is doing much of the work for you. If you truly think you are propelling yourself forward on the dreadmill prove it. Just stop running (without turning off the machine or jumping off the track).
*Not responsible for the injuries that could be caused by this maneuver.
1 -
ExistingFish wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »People here often suggest logging only half the calories if the calories stated seem unusually high, or if their goal is weight loss as a priority. If your machine calculates closely, there is really no need to do that.
Studies show that weight x distance in miles x .63 = net calories burned running. Walking is a bit more than half that number. If your treadmill logs miles correctly you can simply do the math and figure out a realistic calorie burn. Some machines will give you gross calorie burn estimates, and that alone can skew the numbers.
This, though it might be a bit less on a treadmill as you're not propelling yourself forward. On the other hand this equation could have been derived from treadmill observations. Hmm...
If you weren't propelling yourself forward on a treadmill you'd fall off the back. I don't get that statement. What do you suppose, you are moving your legs but it isn't propelling you forward?
Seems like it would be more complicated than weight x distance x .63, depending on if you were full out running or jogging or if you were on an incline of any kind, etc. I don't know, do people run at an incline? I mostly walk on the treadmill, I occasionally sprint for HIIT, but no long runs.
The belt is doing much of the work for you. If you truly think you are propelling yourself forward on the dreadmill prove it. Just stop running (without turning off the machine or jumping off the track).
*Not responsible for the injuries that could be caused by this maneuver.
I think you are getting this wrong. If you stop moving forward on the treadmill, you will be moved backwards off the back. You have to match the rearward propulsion of the treadmill with equal forward propulsion of yourself to stay in one place.
The belt is working directly against you, not for you.5 -
ExistingFish wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »People here often suggest logging only half the calories if the calories stated seem unusually high, or if their goal is weight loss as a priority. If your machine calculates closely, there is really no need to do that.
Studies show that weight x distance in miles x .63 = net calories burned running. Walking is a bit more than half that number. If your treadmill logs miles correctly you can simply do the math and figure out a realistic calorie burn. Some machines will give you gross calorie burn estimates, and that alone can skew the numbers.
This, though it might be a bit less on a treadmill as you're not propelling yourself forward. On the other hand this equation could have been derived from treadmill observations. Hmm...
If you weren't propelling yourself forward on a treadmill you'd fall off the back. I don't get that statement. What do you suppose, you are moving your legs but it isn't propelling you forward?
Seems like it would be more complicated than weight x distance x .63, depending on if you were full out running or jogging or if you were on an incline of any kind, etc. I don't know, do people run at an incline? I mostly walk on the treadmill, I occasionally sprint for HIIT, but no long runs.
The belt is doing much of the work for you. If you truly think you are propelling yourself forward on the dreadmill prove it. Just stop running (without turning off the machine or jumping off the track).
*Not responsible for the injuries that could be caused by this maneuver.
And I have tried it, yesterday at the gym when I was warming up I dropped a glove while it was starting. I stopped moving to pick it up and almost fell off the back because the belt moved me BACKWARDS.4 -
ExistingFish wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »People here often suggest logging only half the calories if the calories stated seem unusually high, or if their goal is weight loss as a priority. If your machine calculates closely, there is really no need to do that.
Studies show that weight x distance in miles x .63 = net calories burned running. Walking is a bit more than half that number. If your treadmill logs miles correctly you can simply do the math and figure out a realistic calorie burn. Some machines will give you gross calorie burn estimates, and that alone can skew the numbers.
This, though it might be a bit less on a treadmill as you're not propelling yourself forward. On the other hand this equation could have been derived from treadmill observations. Hmm...
If you weren't propelling yourself forward on a treadmill you'd fall off the back. I don't get that statement. What do you suppose, you are moving your legs but it isn't propelling you forward?
Seems like it would be more complicated than weight x distance x .63, depending on if you were full out running or jogging or if you were on an incline of any kind, etc. I don't know, do people run at an incline? I mostly walk on the treadmill, I occasionally sprint for HIIT, but no long runs.
The belt is doing much of the work for you. If you truly think you are propelling yourself forward on the dreadmill prove it. Just stop running (without turning off the machine or jumping off the track).
*Not responsible for the injuries that could be caused by this maneuver.
And I have tried it, yesterday at the gym when I was warming up I dropped a glove while it was starting. I stopped moving to pick it up and almost fell off the back because the belt moved me BACKWARDS.
Does that happen when you run outside?0 -
BTW - There is some research the says setting the incline to 1% gets close to the same effort as running outside. Of course your missing all of the hills (up and down) plus your running at a constant angle. I'm not sure my achillies would like that much.0
-
ExistingFish wrote: »ExistingFish wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »People here often suggest logging only half the calories if the calories stated seem unusually high, or if their goal is weight loss as a priority. If your machine calculates closely, there is really no need to do that.
Studies show that weight x distance in miles x .63 = net calories burned running. Walking is a bit more than half that number. If your treadmill logs miles correctly you can simply do the math and figure out a realistic calorie burn. Some machines will give you gross calorie burn estimates, and that alone can skew the numbers.
This, though it might be a bit less on a treadmill as you're not propelling yourself forward. On the other hand this equation could have been derived from treadmill observations. Hmm...
If you weren't propelling yourself forward on a treadmill you'd fall off the back. I don't get that statement. What do you suppose, you are moving your legs but it isn't propelling you forward?
Seems like it would be more complicated than weight x distance x .63, depending on if you were full out running or jogging or if you were on an incline of any kind, etc. I don't know, do people run at an incline? I mostly walk on the treadmill, I occasionally sprint for HIIT, but no long runs.
The belt is doing much of the work for you. If you truly think you are propelling yourself forward on the dreadmill prove it. Just stop running (without turning off the machine or jumping off the track).
*Not responsible for the injuries that could be caused by this maneuver.
And I have tried it, yesterday at the gym when I was warming up I dropped a glove while it was starting. I stopped moving to pick it up and almost fell off the back because the belt moved me BACKWARDS.
Does that happen when you run outside?
I don't run outside.
Point being, you do propel yourself FORWARD on a treadmill. You HAVE to, by design. Standing still is moving backwards, moving forwards is standing still.
Your point was that you burn fewer calories on a treadmill because you don't propel yourself forward, that just defies the laws of physics.4 -
While I do see the mechanics of treadmill versus road running as a different in what muscles they use in what ways, I don't think the calorie burn could be different enough to care about, if all other things are even.
5 -
BTW - There is some research the says setting the incline to 1% gets close to the same effort as running outside. Of course your missing all of the hills (up and down) plus your running at a constant angle. I'm not sure my achillies would like that much.
I rarely use a flat treadmill, for walking I often use over 10% incline. When I run I do it HIIT and use about a 4% incline, but I don't really run much.
I was off running for some time due to tendinopathy, which hasn't been an issue since I lost weight and strengthened my legs, so I experimented with running again and my tendinopathy has flared it's ugly head again. I suppose it's other forms of cardio for me for now. I don't particularly like running anyway.1 -
ExistingFish wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »People here often suggest logging only half the calories if the calories stated seem unusually high, or if their goal is weight loss as a priority. If your machine calculates closely, there is really no need to do that.
Studies show that weight x distance in miles x .63 = net calories burned running. Walking is a bit more than half that number. If your treadmill logs miles correctly you can simply do the math and figure out a realistic calorie burn. Some machines will give you gross calorie burn estimates, and that alone can skew the numbers.
This, though it might be a bit less on a treadmill as you're not propelling yourself forward. On the other hand this equation could have been derived from treadmill observations. Hmm...
If you weren't propelling yourself forward on a treadmill you'd fall off the back. I don't get that statement. What do you suppose, you are moving your legs but it isn't propelling you forward?
Seems like it would be more complicated than weight x distance x .63, depending on if you were full out running or jogging or if you were on an incline of any kind, etc. I don't know, do people run at an incline? I mostly walk on the treadmill, I occasionally sprint for HIIT, but no long runs.
That number was based on a study, and IIRC the speed was right about 6 mph on flat ground. I can dig it up if you'd like. Wait.... I have the abstract bookmarked.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15570150t bookmarked.
Certainly incline, pace, etc all factor in. From studies and such I've seen most "running" speeds within the average persons speed ranges don't vary that much. For the real quick people, air resistance creates a slightly higher calorie burn. And the testing used treadmills and people on the track, so that also helps kill the "treadmills are easier" debate.
4 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »While I do see the mechanics of treadmill versus road running as a different in what muscles they use in what ways, I don't think the calorie burn could be different enough to care about, if all other things are even.
Though I've seen the mechanics point debated quite a few times, there was a study on that one as well. And they determined not much change really. Now that one I might actually have to dig for....2 -
ExistingFish wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »People here often suggest logging only half the calories if the calories stated seem unusually high, or if their goal is weight loss as a priority. If your machine calculates closely, there is really no need to do that.
Studies show that weight x distance in miles x .63 = net calories burned running. Walking is a bit more than half that number. If your treadmill logs miles correctly you can simply do the math and figure out a realistic calorie burn. Some machines will give you gross calorie burn estimates, and that alone can skew the numbers.
This, though it might be a bit less on a treadmill as you're not propelling yourself forward. On the other hand this equation could have been derived from treadmill observations. Hmm...
If you weren't propelling yourself forward on a treadmill you'd fall off the back. I don't get that statement. What do you suppose, you are moving your legs but it isn't propelling you forward?
Seems like it would be more complicated than weight x distance x .63, depending on if you were full out running or jogging or if you were on an incline of any kind, etc. I don't know, do people run at an incline? I mostly walk on the treadmill, I occasionally sprint for HIIT, but no long runs.
Speed matters less to calorie burn than you'd think. It's really all about mass and distance (incline makes a difference too but for looped or out and back courses it's OK to assume that the ups and downs more or less cancel out).
In fact, the only reason that running burns more calories than walking is that when employing a running stride you are covering the horizontal distance and a vertical distance with each stride (because both feet leave the ground at the same time).
2 -
robertw486 wrote: »MelanieCN77 wrote: »While I do see the mechanics of treadmill versus road running as a different in what muscles they use in what ways, I don't think the calorie burn could be different enough to care about, if all other things are even.
Though I've seen the mechanics point debated quite a few times, there was a study on that one as well. And they determined not much change really. Now that one I might actually have to dig for....
It's different for me. My hip flexors can get sore from the treadmill whereas they never do from road or trail.0 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »MelanieCN77 wrote: »While I do see the mechanics of treadmill versus road running as a different in what muscles they use in what ways, I don't think the calorie burn could be different enough to care about, if all other things are even.
Though I've seen the mechanics point debated quite a few times, there was a study on that one as well. And they determined not much change really. Now that one I might actually have to dig for....
It's different for me. My hip flexors can get sore from the treadmill whereas they never do from road or trail.
Interesting, but IMO not surprising. I think we all do things slightly different and as such become "outliers" as compared to the data trend sometimes. Though I haven't done it much, I tend to bounce less on a treadmill since I know there are no imperfections in the surface. And my natural run pacing sucks, so usually the treadmill results in a quicker pace, since I can just match the speed I set it at.
Maybe that known surface lets you bounce harder and alter your stride length? Just a guess, since I often can't figure out my own N=1 being different at times.1
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
- 426 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