Confused about calories burned

LazyHairyBear

I am pretty new to all this losing weight and exercise malarkey and I am just getting baffled by numbers.

I am a big bloke, 5ft10 and 282lb and I do walking on the treadmill. Initially I was taking the reading from the machine to give me my calorie loss but I have just bought a heart rate monitor to get a more accurate reading.

Last night I walked for 35 minutes at 4.3 mph on a aerobic workout that included slopes of 0%-3%.

The machine gave me a calorie loss of 448
My Fitness Pal gave me a calorie count of 468 (although I had to put in 4.5mph rather than 4.3 but it did not take into account the incline.

Both of which seem close enough to each other to be reasonable.

My shiny new heart rate monitor strapped to my chest gave me a reading of 863 for the 35 minutes I was doing the walking. I was led to believe that a HRM would give me a more accurate reading but that seems a hell of a lot higher than the other two.

Is it possible my HRM is correct or should I be taking it back for a refund and sticking with the MFP/machine readings?

peuglow

Personally, I don't really pay much attention to the calories burned. I don't 'eat back' any of the calories I burn, so that's why it doesn't matter much to me.

I'm not certain what is the best method of tracking calories burned. My best suggestion would be to take an average of the 3, and work your progress from there.

jacksonpt

Assuming its a decent HRM and it's setup with your info, yes... it's entirely possible that the HRM is more accurate. The MFP suggestions are little more than averages, and the number given by the treadnill doesn't know much about you or the kind of shape you're in.

HRMs are still just an estimate, but assuming they take into account your resting and max HR, they are generally a more accurate estimate.

WaterBunnie

Bump