Message Boards » Fitness and Exercise

TOPIC: difference between treadmill and walking?

 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
December 2, 2010 7:31 AM
ok. if i go into the database under treadmill, it only takes into account your weight and how long you were on..not that pace.
so lets say i do it for 60 min..i burned 538 calories.

BUT

if you put it under walking- at a 3.5 pace..which is the same pace i did on the treadmill...i only burned 200 and something calories.


soooo which is right?
  1901836
December 2, 2010 7:37 AM
I would say that it's the 200 calorie burn. Depends on the incline however, I think that 586 number is very large for a 60 min walk. I think normal 3.5 walk on the treadmill at no incline is 389 for 60 min.
  2635284
December 2, 2010 7:37 AM
I sure hope someone with some better knowledge answers this. I do a bunch of walking but also treadmill stuff.
December 2, 2010 7:40 AM
In the database it serves as a general guide probably the lowest amount a person would burn. I would use the actual treadmill readings as it is more accurate with the settings/pace/incline etc.
  2012650
December 2, 2010 7:41 AM
I have a heart rate monitor that I use when I run or walk on the treadmill to get a more accurate reading for how many calories I burned during my workout, which it varies each time I use the treadmill.
December 2, 2010 7:41 AM
yah, like i said, for 60 min on the treadmill, mfp gives me 500 and something calories burned..and i dont walk on an incline. so going the same pace if i was just walking outside only gives me 200, according to mfp.
  1901836
December 2, 2010 7:41 AM
My treadmill actually calculates calories burned and when I add my exercise on MFP I just used Jogging at whatever pace (3.5)and it's always a tad below the calories burned on my treadmill so I go with the MFP numbers. But they aren't far apart...say 560 calories on treadmill vs. 545 on MFP

Hope this helps =)
  2624194
December 2, 2010 7:41 AM
I walk on the treadmill daily ...... at a 3.8 to a 4.1 pace on a 8.5 % incline for approx 30 to 35 minutes and burn 300 - 350 calories. So I think the 500 calories you are burning is very accurate. Hope it helps!
December 2, 2010 7:42 AM
QUOTE:

ok. if i go into the database under treadmill, it only takes into account your weight and how long you were on..not that pace.
so lets say i do it for 60 min..i burned 538 calories.

BUT

if you put it under walking- at a 3.5 pace..which is the same pace i did on the treadmill...i only burned 200 and something calories.


soooo which is right?


The lower one is probably right as it knows your speed the other one may assume a pace of 8.0. Walking is the exercise not treadmilling. Use the one that uses your pace.
Edited by erickirb On December 2, 2010 7:44 AM
December 2, 2010 7:45 AM
I don't think you'll find there is an easy answer to the question. When I started working out, I wore a heart monitor that calculated calories burned based on my weight and heartrate. That device always reported 100 or more calories burned than the exercise machine. The exercise machine accounted for weight, resistance and distance. After being at this for a few months, my fitness level is improved dramatically and now the heart monitor reports 100 fewer calories burned than the machine. There are too many variables for either to be taken as "correct."
December 2, 2010 7:46 AM
hmm..see u go faster then i do..and incline..so id think you'd burn more then i do.
  1901836
December 2, 2010 7:47 AM
I go by what the machine actually calculates, not by what MFP says. (I know the machines aren't 100% accurate but it's working fine for my own weight loss, so I don't care.) So if I spend 30 minutes on the treadmill and it says I burned 200 calories, I go with that, rather than whatever MFP may calculate.
  2469411
December 2, 2010 7:48 AM
and ps. if i go by what my actual treadmill says...its always wayyyy lower then what mfp gives me :(
  1901836
December 2, 2010 7:49 AM
Based on your weight taking into account you walk 3.5 miles in 60 mins it works out at about 245 kcals.

Its much easier to work it out in distance, but it can also differ based on your weight and age.

I think the treadmill calculation is miles out.

http://walking.about.com/cs/howtoloseweight/a/howcalburn.htm
December 2, 2010 7:53 AM
When i use the treadmil, i always log it as walking & then put in my pace. I think that's far more accurate. It's taking into consideration, your weight and your pace. Who knows that the 'treadmill' setting it as. That may assume that you're running for the 60 minutes as opposed to the walking you're doing on it. I continue to log mine as walking and the 3.5 + incline that i do.
December 2, 2010 7:59 AM
QUOTE:

yah, like i said, for 60 min on the treadmill, mfp gives me 500 and something calories burned..and i dont walk on an incline. so going the same pace if i was just walking outside only gives me 200, according to mfp.


If the treadmill you are actually using doesn't give you a calorie count based on the information you put in, then I would go with the walking 3.5, brisk etc. setting here on MFP. If your maching tells you a calorie count, then I would use that. I don't think the blanket "treadmill" setting here on MFP is good because it doesn't account for your pace. If I ran the treadmill for 1 hour, and you walked it for 1 hour, but we both used the "treadmill" choice -- who would be right? Thats why I would use walking and the pace you were walkling, or the calorie readings from the actual machine. :)
  2751894
December 2, 2010 8:03 AM
I ran at a 9:00 minute mile for ~50 minutes last night on a treadmill (0% incline), treadmill was 600something, my Nike+ was at ~600 cals. Usually when running outdoors with the Nike+ and Timex HRM i burn ~680ish on the Nike+ and closer to ~800 on the Timex. Thats at 9-9:30 min/mile for 5-6 miles.

While several factors important to know (Wt, pace, age, HR, duration), I would think that closer to 200 cals. With Wt and time without pace i agree with Erickirb....assumption on pace could make significant differences either way. Increase the incline to 8-9% and you'll be close to 500-600/hour at the 3.5 pace.
December 2, 2010 8:08 AM
One thing to consider, as well, is that when you are on the treadmill it is a guaranteed 3.5 speed. You can't really slow down the pace without changing the settings. When walking, it isn't a guaranteed speed. I know while using my pedometer app on my phone, I will think that I am walking at a set speed but it fluctuates from 3.2-3.8. If you aren't comfortable with the MFP calculations, then meet in the middle between the treadmill calculation and the walking calculation and then walk/treadmill an extra 5 minutes, don't count it in the minutes walked and call it good! :)
  1291567
December 2, 2010 8:09 AM
I think that the natural walk/run would burn more calories than one on a treadmill. You have no choice but to use your core muscles and stablizers and such. So that might account for more work. The other thing is tha you are climbing hills, grades and such as well as having a true natural momentum.

Anyway, I think your body weight has a huge factor as well. A calorie being a unit of energy to do work, a larger muscle requires more energy to achieve the same task. I think that this webiste's software algorithm (even though it is averaging) may be more correct than the treadmill if it is provided the proper information. Just an opinion from an Engineer.

One additional observation for me, the Nike program on the IPOD Touch and this website seem to be in sync with each other as far as Calorie burn.

Thanks,

John
Edited by Jdarne01 On December 2, 2010 8:10 AM
December 2, 2010 8:23 AM
QUOTE:

ok. if i go into the database under treadmill, it only takes into account your weight and how long you were on..not that pace.
so lets say i do it for 60 min..i burned 538 calories.

BUT

if you put it under walking- at a 3.5 pace..which is the same pace i did on the treadmill...i only burned 200 and something calories.


soooo which is right?


I would never believe that walking (whether plain ol' walking OR a treadmill) burns that many calories. I burn that many calories doing INSANITY workouts where my heart feels like it's going to bust...walking, not even close.
December 2, 2010 8:23 AM
intensity and incline have a ton to do with it. I have to run about 6 miles to hit that calorie burn....figure about 90-110 calories per mile at a .5 to 1.5 inlcine....so if in one hour you go 3 miles I would guesstimate (notice I say guesstimate..not exact here...around 300 ish cals...the incline does make a difference though...but at a higher incline you (general you) go slower, at least I do, so I am not sure about how the incline affects the calories per incline ratio. On a treadmill when you increase your intensity you go faster thus burning traveling more mileage in less time and burning more cals. etc
December 2, 2010 8:38 AM
thanks everyone..im still so confused..lol
i just did 22 min..just to test the numbers out..and my treadmill gave me 105 calories burned at a 3.5pace and no incline..mfp gave me 83 for walking 3.5. soo i'm gonna go with the treadmill.

i think after reading, its best to use the walking on this site as opposed to the treadmill, cause it doesnt tell u the pace.

i dont have an iphone or any gadgets to really determine my own personal calorie burn..although i want one..but the cheepiest calorie counter i found was 50 bucks.
  1901836
December 2, 2010 11:57 AM
I wear a heart rate monitor so... I walked .86 miles to the gym (uphill), got to the gym, walk/jogged a mile at 5.5 a mile for 2 min, and 4.0 for 2 min alternating for 13 min for my mile. Did the whole arm circut at the gym and some free weights to get rid of the bingo wings, then walked/jogged downhill home for another .86 miles. Total calories burned was 580 and I did it in 1:15. I wear a heart rate monitor so???

I've done the Jillian Michaels website and found that I think that they make the calories burned in exercise on the websites high. It's frustrating b/c you account for that burn and then, well you know. The scale doesn't move and you feel you're working hard. Last Christmas I asked/received a heart rate monitor and love it. I always know exactly what I burn.

Hang in there.
  2635284
December 3, 2010 6:01 AM
denisec26...I think the lesson here is that just as everyone's body is different, so are the calculators! Someone who weighs 200 lbs. is going to burn more calories than someone who weighs 145 lbs. I don't think any of the "calculators" are dead on accurate. If you find that you aren't losing or are gaining some of your weight back, don't eat all of your exercise calories. If you are losing consistently, then girl...you are doing something right!! It is a little frustrating when you think that you are burning more than the calculator tells you. I'd pick one calculator, rather than several, and go with what it says. Try it for a week or two and if you are losing weight...it works for you!!! It might not be right, but it is working!! :)
  1291567

Reply

Message Boards » Fitness and Exercise

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.