Fitness Minutes: (180,722)
15,191 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.
Hope this helps.
"All your life, you have just been waiting for this moment to arise." (Lennon & McCartney, "Blackbird")
Fitness Minutes: (532)
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.