How many calories did I burn, exactly?

I was on my treadmill for 25 minutes. It was on an incline grade of 5.0 and I was walking at 3.5mph. The treadmill itself says I burned 322 calories.

 

But on this site, it says I would've only burned 144. Which do I believe?

I don't think the site takes incline into account. Go with your 322.

Believe the site. 3.5 mph is relatively slow, I wouldn't have burned over 250-280/hour, that's 105-115 for 25 mins.  You're probably heavier than me (I'm 5'4'', 101lbs), hence a higher number. 

There's absolutely no way one can burn 322 in 25 mins unless he/she is very obese. An hour of high-impact aerobics (jumping, kicks, etc pretty much nonstop) never burns over 450 for me (avg heart rate is around 160).

Well, the one that said so said "Walking - uphill".

 

But I guess it doesn't really know which grade of incline that is... 

I'm, I think, around 130lbs and 5'2''...

 

 

But, thank you for pretty much saying that if I did burn a good amount of calories, I'm very obese and if I didn't, I'm obviously not working hard enough.

 

It's like with your post, I lose either way. 

Original Post by sebenne:

I don't think the site takes incline into account. Go with your 322.

 It does if you choose the right activity.

3.5 mph flat gives me an estimate of 175/h; 3.5 mph uphill - 277/h. See the difference? 

Original Post by phantom_moocat:

But, thank you for pretty much saying that if I did burn a good amount of calories, I'm very obese and if I didn't, I'm obviously not working hard enough.

 

It's like with your post, I lose either way.

 I'm sorry if it offended you, I never meant anything of the sort. I never implied you were obese, I know that CC adjust the number to YOUR weight, so I figured yours wasn't far away from mine. Nor did I imply that you weren't working hard enough. It is just IMPOSSIBLE to burn that many calories in 25 minutes if you're 130 lbs, especially if you're doing a moderate exercise. It's not "nor hard enough",  it's actually considered better for fat burn, since the higher your heart rate, the less oxygen your muscles are getting, the more glycogen is being used for energy, and less fat (an oversimplified explanation, but gives an idea)

What I was trying to warn you about is burn overestimates. There are sooo many threads around here where people ask questions about the calorie burn estimates on elliptical/treadmill/etc. They are usually way off, even if you enter your height/weight/age. I use a heat rate monitor that knows exactly what my heart rate is during the exercise, and calculated calories burned from that data. This site is pretty accurate, trust it.

 

As long you entered your weight into the machine and on CC I'd just average the two and call it about 230.

Most tredmills are set to 6" males who weigh 180lbs.  I always go with CC numbers, they may seem low, but because it's calculated with all the data you've put in, it's more likely to be accurate.

Generally speaking, per mile on flat land you burn your body weight in calories.

I second investing in a heart rate monitor, I'm saving up for mine =)

Original Post by maha-kisa:

Original Post by phantom_moocat:

But, thank you for pretty much saying that if I did burn a good amount of calories, I'm very obese and if I didn't, I'm obviously not working hard enough.

 

It's like with your post, I lose either way.

I'm sorry if it offended you, I never meant anything of the sort. I never implied you were obese, I know that CC adjust the number to YOUR weight, so I figured yours wasn't far away from mine. Nor did I imply that you weren't working hard enough. It is just IMPOSSIBLE to burn that many calories in 25 minutes if you're 130 lbs, especially if you're doing a moderate exercise. It's not "nor hard enough", it's actually considered better for fat burn, since the higher your heart rate, the less oxygen your muscles are getting, the more glycogen is being used for energy, and less fat (an oversimplified explanation, but gives an idea)

What I was trying to warn you about is burn overestimates. There are sooo many threads around here where people ask questions about the calorie burn estimates on elliptical/treadmill/etc. They are usually way off, even if you enter your height/weight/age. I use a heat rate monitor that knows exactly what my heart rate is during the exercise, and calculated calories burned from that data. This site is pretty accurate, trust it.

 

 Okay, so 144 seems about right? I might go on again for another ten minutes or so, later... I have nothing better to do with my life.

I am 5 foot 10 inches and weigh about 180 and I burn (as recorded with a heart rate monitor) about 350 calories in 30 minutes on a 6% incline at 3.5 mph.  So you can see I am a lot bigger than you!  I would either take the cc site or add them and average???  I usually do not take the cc site, for I have a polar hrm, but maybe because yours are so differernt, I would just add and average.  Hope this helps!!

I find the difference between my hrm and this site for walking is so off kilter that its almost impossible to even tell someone what they might of burned.  There are many personal factors that one has to consider besides age, weight height sex  but also are you on meds like betablockers because that effects heart rates -  how much sleep do you get a night what is your stress level and on and on and on...

 Basically machines are worthless to use for cal count.  Invest in heart rate monitor that gives cal burns and you'll be alittle closer to the true burn. 

From my own personal experience walking cals on this site vs my hrm aren't within 200 cals of each other I have to log my walking as uphill very fast carrying a 25 lb load to come even close to what this site will give me and my HRM.

I have stumbled upon this article in the New York times just before reading this post. I thought it might help.

 Putting very little weight in calorie counting methods

 

The article was published on December 20th 2007, but no one else posted it here -to my knowledge (I did a quick search). 

 

Original Post by dbackerfan:

I find the difference between my hrm and this site for walking is so off kilter that its almost impossible to even tell someone what they might of burned.  There are many personal factors that one has to consider besides age, weight height sex  but also are you on meds like betablockers because that effects heart rates -  how much sleep do you get a night what is your stress level and on and on and on...

 Basically machines are worthless to use for cal count.  Invest in heart rate monitor that gives cal burns and you'll be alittle closer to the true burn. 

From my own personal experience walking cals on this site vs my hrm aren't within 200 cals of each other I have to log my walking as uphill very fast carrying a 25 lb load to come even close to what this site will give me and my HRM.

I have found that the treadmills, ellipticals and steppers I use are all pretty accurate with calculating calories burned; almost exactly what CC tells me (off less than 10 calories after 10-15 minutes of cardio). The treadmills are brand new, the ellipticals maybe a couple years old and the steppers maybe another year older than the ellipticals. I wouldn't count on every piece of cardio equipment being 100% accurate, but I wouldn't assume they are way off, either.

Original Post by nocturne:

Most tredmills are set to 6" males who weigh 180lbs. I always go with CC numbers, they may seem low, but because it's calculated with all the data you've put in, it's more likely to be accurate.

Generally speaking, per mile on flat land you burn your body weight in calories.

I second investing in a heart rate monitor, I'm saving up for mine =)

 Actually, I think most of them are automatically set to 150 pounds.

Wow, that article makes it sound pretty tough to know how many calories you are burning. I suppose in the end, the only true measures are a person's body composition (fat vs. muscle, etc.) and weight.

Here's what I do. I use an HRM and kind of sanity check it's calorie counts vs. those commonly stated on this site and through other, similar tools. And...

My current experiment is to track my calorie deficit -- calories in minus calories out (via my normal metabolism + exercise). I have a little spreadsheet that shows my calorie deficit over time. I've often read one must burn an extra 3,500 calories to lose a pound. In my spreadsheet, I'm seeing if this is true for me. I certainly am not tracking calories in or out perfectly, but if the 3,500 number is correct, my weight loss should roughly track.

The results so far? My deficit is 15,633 calories over about 3 weeks. 15,633/3,500 means I should've lost about 4.47 pounds. My actual weight loss as of this morning -- 4.5 pounds.

Now that looks pretty good, but realize that daily fluctuations can throw the numbers off temporarily. I was 2 1/2 pounds heavier yesterday due to a 70-mile bike ride and big, salt-laced dinner with friends. So I'm just watching this number over time. My assumption is that the 3,500 calorie number is true. If my results stray too far from what is predicted by my calorie deficit, it should show that I'm not tracking calories in/out correctly.

One other note (and sorry for the long post). As soon as I start watching what I eat, I tend to feel like "Oh my gosh, I'm really restricting my eating (poor me." But I'm also tracking my average daily calories in, and when I look at the spreadsheet I see I'm still eating over 2,000 calories per day. Not exactly starvation material. :-) A typical week includes lots of days where I'm close to my 1,800 calorie target, but almost always at least one day where I'm way over. So in the end, it's a good reminder to me that I'm doing a good job but not really being all that restrictive after all.

All of that to say, perhaps tracking your calorie deficit will help you fine-tune the number of calories you're really burning via exercise? This may be the surest way to customize the results for your body and workout style.

Best of luck, Mike

See, I have the opposite problem.  The machine always tells me I burn half or 2/3 of the amount that CC tells me I burn.  I usually just take CC's estimation with a grain of salt and figure it's a bit less....don't think that really helps but that's my two cents. Anybody else with this problem? (sorry for going off-topic)

Here's the calculation for figuring it out - BTW unles the treadmill knows your weight and what MET value you are at (which it usually doesn't) then it is just an average guess put in by the manufacturer of the treadmill.

Total Calories Burned = Duration in Minutes x ((MET x 3.5 x your weight in kg)/200).

Convert LBS to KG - EX: 193 lbs X .45359237 KG per LB = 87.54 KG

MET values for Treadmill range from 3.0 – 6.0 which represent moderate to heavy work outs and with values greater than 6.0 being considered vigorous.

Keep in mind that a moderate work out load is considered walking at a speed and incline where you are slightly winded, but can still carry on a normal conversation with someone. 

Other things to consider are how long have you been working out at this speed and grade percentage. 

Cheers from Texas