That's probably it, usually it is way off with the mileage. Probably it's calculating the disance (according to my stride) along with time instead of with heart rate alone.
Fitness Minutes: (17,198)
8/10/14 12:19 P
I think you'd have to be flat out sprinting to even get close to burning that many calories in under 40 minutes. I think around 100 calories per mile sounds about right, give or take some. Maybe your stride isn't measured right? I know for my heart rate/calorie tracker watch it was a pain to get the stride measured accurately.
8/10/14 12:03 P
it is calibrated. I may have lost a little bit of weight since then, but nothing major.
Fitness Minutes: (193,482)
13,272 8/10/14 10:59 A
546 calories for 37 minutes of running, no matter the terrain, sounds a little high. 266 may be too low, too. Broadly speaking, it's around 100 calories per mile for running but could be as high 125 or so. Is your watch calibrated properly to your height, weight, age and gender?
8/10/14 10:49 A
When it comes to jogging I go over uneven terrain, but measure it out with google earth. My Sync watch measures my heart rate and gives me a calorie burned for a jog, and it's usually quite different from what SP tells me. Take today for example, SP says I burned 266 calories on my run while the watch reports a whopping 546cals. It was a 37min run. What's a girl to do? I suppose as long as I make sure to eat when I'm hungry right? I'm in weight maintenance mode right now and I almost never go over my calorie range, but I found I gained about a half inch in the past month.
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.