Calories burned ... 3 different figures

Options
daddyratty
daddyratty Posts: 305 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I have a dilemma. I generally end up with three different calorie figures for my runs. One on here, one on my Garmin, and one on www.dailymile.com where I track my workouts.

For example yesterday, my Garmin said that my 2.12 mile run (23:46) burned 422 calories.

The closest I could get on MFP was entering 12 minutes at a 12 minute pace and 12 minutes at a 10 minute pace (for a rough average of 11:00 miles - my pace was actually 11:12). This punched in a credit of 441 for my diary yesterday.

Then when I entered the info into dailymile.com (which has my updated weight), it said that this run would burn 538 calories.

I am trying to find the HRM that's in a box somewhere in the house, but my fear is that it will just provide another outlying number to further confuse the issue.

Replies

  • kdiamond
    kdiamond Posts: 3,329 Member
    Options
    I would put in the lowest of the three - my opinion - this way you can't overeat and waste the hard work you've done!

    (But yes, an accurate HRM would be the best bet normally)
  • Moobiez
    Moobiez Posts: 14
    Options
    Unfortunately it isn't an exact science with the websites and many heart rate monitors. I have found MFP to be pretty accurate when compare to other sites where I plug in my age and weight and exercise. Usually only a hundred or two off.
  • edryer123
    edryer123 Posts: 502 Member
    Options
    I agree with a previous poster, put the lower of the three. Or you could average them out.
  • ChessRonin
    ChessRonin Posts: 160 Member
    Options
    A variance of 30 calories or so for a run hardly makes a difference if you put it in perspective. If you need a 3500calorie/pound deficit to lose weight, how much does the 30 calorie variance actually play into it?

    Just chose the lower number, or the average, or the highest number, it really won't make much of a difference; just keep up the great exercise!
  • dawnemjh
    dawnemjh Posts: 1,465 Member
    Options
    I would go with the lower of the the 2 that were around 440.
  • jane77
    jane77 Posts: 489
    Options
    Ok just to confuse things more. I jogged Sunday with my polar FT4 and my Timex Ironman zone trainer and my run keeper app. I also put my numbers into a few web sites. yes both HRM are set up right and for me Yes the Timex is way wrong in their formula and I have know that since the first time I put it on. ANd no I don't jog fast, slow and steady. I use to run 5 days a week had some foot problems, now I go once a week on my rest day from P90X, which by the way has really helped my feet and made me a stronger jogger. BLAH BLAH BLAH anyway here's the info
    Polar 1:29:22 Time Calories 741 Average HR 154 Max 185 In Zone 1:08:09

    Timex 1:29:35 Time Calories 1373 Average HR 153 Max 176 In Zone 1:02:00

    Run Keeper gives me this 6.30 miles 13:38 min miles 809 cal

    WWW.triathlontraning gives me 922 cal info they wanted age 47, weight 155, Gender F , Average HR, Duration.V02 I Use 35

    MFP could only put 5mph Its really 4.25 coldn't fine a way to do that 834 calories burned

    Health Status web site (say best calcultor) only asked for age and duration 731 cal

    Run the Plant web sites two ways to calculate Weight and distance 638 calories Speed and miles per hour 876 Calories

    So what does it all mean? I don't know and either does anyone else! But my general thought, we cant get to caught up in the numbers
    because the power that be are still trying to figure them out. (side note... my timex zone trainer..... I have always known to 1/2 my calorie numbers but there may be people out there that dont and Timex should be ashamhed)
    I had on both straps.
    Sorry

Categories