Confused?!?! Which do I count?

ladybug3
ladybug3 Posts: 65
edited September 19 in Fitness and Exercise
Okay Im really confused on which calories burned to count. I sometimes walk on my mil treadmill for 30 minutes at about 4 mph. It tells me I burned 330 calories. When I walk the same pace for the same amount of time on the road mpf tells me I only burned 180 calories. Which is right??? :embarassed:

Replies

  • foxyforce
    foxyforce Posts: 3,078 Member
    there is no way you are burning 330 calories in 30 minutes walking on a treadmill or on the road.
    something is missing....whether the treadmill is broken or...something.

    the 180 is much closer
  • Destined
    Destined Posts: 116
    30 minutes on the treadmill yesterday going at an average speed of 4.5 mph gave me 230 calories. I was working my butt off and had an incline of 2.5. That's why I am in love with the arch trainer. For the same amount of time I burn at least 500 calories. Sometimes after my lower body workout I would rather do the treadmill.
  • strawberry25shortcake
    strawberry25shortcake Posts: 183 Member
    This is exactly why I bought heart rate/calorie monitor to know where I'm at. I don't think it is possible for two completely different people (age, sex, weight, endurance level etc.) to do the same exercise for the same time period and to burn the same amount of calories...it just doesn't make sense.
  • leann_m_olson
    leann_m_olson Posts: 363 Member
    hard to tell calories burned without using an hrm depends on your weight. But walking at 4mph , i dont' think you would burn 330 calories, i burn that when i run at a 6mph pace.

    I find for the most part mfp is pretty close in calculating calories burned. There are also a websites where you can put in your weight and excercise here's one:

    http://www.healthstatus.com/cgi-bin/calc/calculator.cgi
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    yep, HRM is almost a requirement if you want to accurately track exercise calories, Machines are always off by a bunch.
  • soxygirl
    soxygirl Posts: 173
    Actually, it is possible to burn 300+ in 30 minutes of walking -- I have an HRM and when I walk I burn about 690 calories in a hour. The calorie burn is going to be different for everyone based on your body, age, and where your heart rate is when you exercise. Someone who is in great shape will burn less jogging than someone who is in so-so shape walking.
  • pannellkat
    pannellkat Posts: 709 Member
    Burning 330 cals in 30 minutes at 4mph seems excessive but I'm not sure how much you weigh either I guess it would all depend on your weight(??)

    I did 30 minutes today on treadmill 3 minutes walk at 3.7 and 2 minutes job at 5.7 throughout the 30 minute session and I burned 213. I am 5'7 166 lbs.
  • ladybug3
    ladybug3 Posts: 65
    I kinda figured the treadmill was too high.:grumble: I couldn't see burning that many calories in that short a time span. I'm 5 ft 4 inches and weigh 153 lbs. I'm also not in top shape:blushing: so I guess a HRM would be a good idea.
    Thanks!:flowerforyou:
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    I kinda figured the treadmill was too high.:grumble: I couldn't see burning that many calories in that short a time span. I'm 5 ft 4 inches and weigh 153 lbs. I'm also not in top shape:blushing: so I guess a HRM would be a good idea.
    Thanks!:flowerforyou:

    At your weight and walking 4 mph on level ground, calorie expenditure is approx 300/hr.
  • charlenes1
    charlenes1 Posts: 4
    Well, now that makes me wonder if my calories burned are correct too. I do the elliptical 30 minutes on Aerobic setting and both the screen on the elliptical and when I list it on my exercise page are the same calories burned. 474. That's what keeps me coming back to the elliptical. Am I possibly not burning that much?
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Well, now that makes me wonder if my calories burned are correct too. I do the elliptical 30 minutes on Aerobic setting and both the screen on the elliptical and when I list it on my exercise page are the same calories burned. 474. That's what keeps me coming back to the elliptical. Am I possibly not burning that much?

    You are probably burning about half that. I think a lot of ellipticals use your cadence to calculate an equivalent running speed and base the calorie calculations from that -- and that would be a substantial overestimation. The only company I know that develops machine-specific algorithms for cross trainers (they do actual VO2 testing on each new machine) is Life Fitness--and that is only true for the new 95X Elevation models and the later silver 95X models.

    The average exerciser needs to be very fit or pretty fit and very heavy to burn 1000 calories per hour, e.g. weighing over 200 lbs and running faster than 6 mph. If you weigh 154 lbs, you need to run at about a 7:20/mile pace to burn 1000 kcals per hour. Most women are going to fall into the 350-700 calories per hour range, based on the average size and fitness level of probably 80% of the people on these comment boards.
  • BrendaLee
    BrendaLee Posts: 4,463 Member
    I kinda figured the treadmill was too high.:grumble: I couldn't see burning that many calories in that short a time span. I'm 5 ft 4 inches and weigh 153 lbs. I'm also not in top shape:blushing: so I guess a HRM would be a good idea.
    Thanks!:flowerforyou:

    It's better to go with the smaller number of calories burned anyhow...better to underestimate than overestimate in the long run. :smile:
  • ladybug3
    ladybug3 Posts: 65
    I kinda figured the treadmill was too high.:grumble: I couldn't see burning that many calories in that short a time span. I'm 5 ft 4 inches and weigh 153 lbs. I'm also not in top shape:blushing: so I guess a HRM would be a good idea.
    Thanks!:flowerforyou:

    It's better to go with the smaller number of calories burned anyhow...better to underestimate than overestimate in the long run. :smile:

    Kinda what I thought:ohwell:
    Thanks!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories