Thanks Coach. My speed was 5.7 & 5.2 most of the time. It helps thanks a lot :-)
Fitness Minutes: (155,104)
15,092 6/10/13 12:59 P
I think 294 would be somewhat high for 1.7 miles of flat walking, but maybe not if you had the treadmill set at a reasonably high elevation level. 125 calories per mile is usually a fairly good estimate for flat walking if your weight is somewhere in the 150 pound range. Heart rate monitors will usually be more accurate because your heart rate is a pretty good indication of your intensity level--but it's still just an estimate. The calorie counters on the machines don't take your heart rate into account, even if you use the machines heart rate monitor.
Fitness Minutes: (532)
13 6/10/13 11:20 A
Hi there! I use a Polar HRM to track my workouts (I only wear it when I'm working out). I usually find that my HRM trends HIGHER on the calorie side, but because of that I usually deduct 20% of the calories it gives me. I don't feel that either way is more accurate than the other, but I really like how the HRM takes into consideration my age, weight, gender and how hard I'm working (using the monitor).
When I compared my Endomundo application vs my HRM, I found the HRM to be higher.
I don't know that there's an exact answer here. :)
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.