Running and walking are well-studied and understood activities, and online calculators usually produce reasonable estimates for these. The major variables in calories burned are bodyweight and total distance covered, and these are easily incorporated into the calculation.
HRM's do have an advantage in being more realiable when the intensity of an exercise is hard to objectively measure eg. aerobics.
However, high blood pressure and some medications can lead to an accelerated heart rate over what the exercise itself justifies, which can lead the HRM to overestimating the calories burned, even though it is accurately counting the number of heart beats.
467 does seem high for 1.87 miles (especially for a fairly slow running pace). Most people work out in the range of 6-10 calories per minute, although more vigorous exercise can get to 10-12 cal/min. A fit person really pushing themselves might burn 12-14 cal/min. A figure of 16+ is not really feasible.
I note that the HRM estimate is nearly 25% higher than the online estimate for running/walking, but 100% higher for cycling. The cycling likely reflects the hills (online calculators assume level ground), and in this case there is good reason to believe it is higher than the online estimate. Scaling back the cycling by 20-25% would give you low 300s in terms of calories.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
| current weight: 178.0