Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
MOTIVATED@LAST Posts: 15,090
7/5/13 8:10 P

Using the figures quoted, I came up with 179 calories on a different calculator. Walking is a well studied and well understood activity, and online calculators tend to be reasonably accurate for this.

Did you enter your bodyweight on the treadmill? Were you using any incline?

M@L

PDUFFM SparkPoints: (4,410)
Fitness Minutes: (5,044)
Posts: 19
7/5/13 7:28 P

Thanks! Heart Rate Monitors don't work for me because I take beta blockers and can't get my heart rate over 135 or so. I think you are correct to under estimate though.

HEALTHYFOREVER4 Posts: 234
7/5/13 7:24 P

Treadmills are known to be inaccurate as far as calories burned goes. If you want a more accurate measure, try wearing a heart rate monitor. Otherwise, I'd probably use the Spark tracker's information. That may just be because I would rather underestimate burned calories than overestimate though. emoticon

PDUFFM SparkPoints: (4,410)
Fitness Minutes: (5,044)
Posts: 19
7/5/13 7:09 P

Why is there such a difference in calories burnt from my treadmill and SparkPeople? Today I walked 50 minutes at 2.5 miles per hour - my treadmill says I burnt 263 calories and when I enter my time in my Fitness Tracker it says I burnt 171.

Page: 1 of (1)  




Other Fitness and Exercise Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
Spark Videos 5/12/2015 4:09:50 PM
Hello 2/22/2015 9:22:39 PM
Creatine vs Glutamine 3/1/2015 8:56:19 PM
Join a BIGGEST LOSER SPRING CHALLENGE TEAM 2/28/2015 12:19:31 PM
Activity tracker removed 2/18/2015 10:33:55 PM