Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
MOTIVATED@LAST Posts: 15,033
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: (4,217)
Fitness Minutes: (4,799)
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: (4,217)
Fitness Minutes: (4,799)
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:
Coming back from runner's knee 3/10/2015 11:32:01 PM
barre suggestions for beginners 3/15/2015 3:41:17 PM
cardio 5/7/2015 1:49:01 PM
Knee strengthening 3/10/2015 10:42:44 PM
Making it count 1/30/2015 6:22:35 PM