How much am I really burning?

blackcows15

I am 6'2", 230 pounds, and 46 years old. I walk/run 30 min a day on the treadmill, about 35% running. MFP says that 30 min burns 457 calories which seems high to me...I figure about half that is correct. How many calories am I really burning?

dianesheart88

The best way to know exactly what your burning is to wear a heart rate monitor. MFP and other counters seem to bump calorie burns up too high. I use a Polar FT4 (under $100).

jesseBYAH

I'm 27 and 220 but I burn about that much with 30 mins on the elliptical. Get yourself a heart rate monitor so that you'll know exactly how much you're burning. The batteries in mine are dead right now and I miss having one Need to fix it soon. It's nice to know exactly how much you're burning!

ecw3780

how far are you going? you need to be entering it in as "X mph for 30 minutes". That does seem high, so I might eat back about 75%. If you plan on doing a lot of walking, I would invest in some sort of tracking device.

eclectic_one

I agree - MFP estimates are high. I use what the equipment says when I input my numbers which is always WAY lower than MFP.

Hellbent_Heidi

I think the general rule (for estimating) is about 100 calories per mile.....so without an HRM (which is really just another estimation tool), its probably safe to log between 200 - 250 calories burned in 30 minutes.

MsWallwoman

The only way I trust my calories burned is with a heart rate monitor. They are SO useful and help a lot. You can get one for fairly cheap (just make sure before you buy that it counts calories, not all do, I found out the hard way).

Good luck on your journey.

meerkat70

doesnt sound unreasonable for your weight. (100 cals pm is average for person of about 160 cals so not a great estimate for someone significantly larger.)

try this if you cant manage the hrm. :http://m.runnersworld.com/tools/calories-burned-calculator

cwolfman13

You're never going to have a truly exact number...it's all estimation. A HRM with a chest strap is about as accurate as you can get for an aerobic event, but it's still an estimate. I think Polar models were tested to be about 70% accurate for the average Joe/Jane that didn't have any underlying medical issues like having a high resting HR, high blood pressure, etc.

There are a few other ways that you can kind of compare and sort of dial a number in. One is to assume roughly 100 calories per mile. It isn't exact, but it's actually pretty close, give or take. This is for either running or walking. You do actually burn more running, but the difference is negligible unless you're really putting in some miles.

You can also take a number between 5 and 10 and multiply by the number of minutes...5 would be just a regular old walk in the park...a 7 would be walking at a pretty good clip...about 4 MP...and 10 would be running roughly 10 minute mile. Again, just a way to sorta check the numbers you're getting from a data base or machine or whatever...nothing exact here. It's pretty hard to burn more than 10 calories per minute with sustained steady state cardio; it requires working close to max and you just can't do that for long periods of time.

meerkat70

meant to post this link:
http://m.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn?page=single

jamgirl19777

purchase a HRM, i use Bodymedia and it's 7 calories difference between that and the treadmill, or you could just enter what the treadmill says info MFP.

bethfartman

The way I figure my calories burned (because I don't have or really want a HRM) is I drop about 100/200 calories from the MFP estimation and then only eat back about half of what I estimated I burned. It's not an exact science, but it works for me.