Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
MOTIVATED@LAST Posts: 15,361
5/17/13 10:43 P

Total distance covered is the major factor in how many calories you burn.

There is no information in your post about speed (or by implication, distance covered). As a slow running speed, 300ish calories could be feasible. At a faster running speed (and thus more distance covered) 400 calories could also be feasible.

Walking and running are pretty well studied activities, and online calculators tend to be fairly reliable for these. HRM's come into their own for activities where it is hard to objectively judge the intensity. This doesn't apply to walking or running.


UNIDENT Posts: 33,498
5/16/13 3:26 P

Exercise is typically 6-8 cals per minute, regardless of size.

So for 10 (400 for 40 minutes) that would have to have been very intense exercise. The 10 minutes of walking wasn't, right? So we know that's unlikely.

If we assumed 10 mins at 6cpm and 30 mins at 8cpm that's exactly 300 - just on that "hundred less than that".

So I would say Spark is pretty reliable.

SPARK_COACH_JEN Posts: 64,142
5/16/13 10:21 A

Machines tend to overestimate calories burned, sometimes by as much as 30%. Here's an Ask the Expert with more info about this:

Hope that helps,

Coach Jen

LEC358 SparkPoints: (11,135)
Fitness Minutes: (6,555)
Posts: 2,744
5/16/13 10:03 A

The only way to be mostly sure is a heart rate monitor. I use the rule of thumb of 100 calories/mile and just track it manually.

JANEY102482 Posts: 393
5/16/13 9:51 A

The treadmill at my gym tells me I burn about 400 calories for 10 minutes of walking and 30 minutes of running. The SP tracker tells me I burn over 100 calories less than that. Which one is accurate?

Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Fitness and Exercise Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
Feeling lethargic because of El Ninyo! 1/18/2016 7:45:56 PM
Lower leg pain 10/23/2015 12:36:05 AM
New here hello 6/15/2016 5:26:50 AM
Exercise buddy 10/6/2015 4:39:25 AM
Gym Membership Annual Fee? 11/20/2015 6:48:14 AM