Running - How Many Calories

brownchristian
brownchristian Posts: 58 Member
edited September 20 in Fitness and Exercise
Getting confused on how many calories I am burning during exercises. When I first started my HRM always showed me burning more calories than the machines showed. As I have progressed my HRM is slowing down on calories. I recently updated my HRM with new weight and today it was almost 100 calories different. What should I expect to burn on the treadmill at 5.5 mph for 30 mins? HRM showed 385 and machine was 472. MFP shows 381 calories at 5.2 MPH which is almost exactly what I burned.

Replies

  • vicidoesstuff
    vicidoesstuff Posts: 214 Member
    I'd go with what the HRM shows, considering it uses more personal information. MFP and the machine would only go by the speed and your weight whereas the HRM takes into account how hard you're working your body - and that all depends on how fit you are.
  • newbierun14
    newbierun14 Posts: 23 Member
    I'd say go with the HRM. The machine isn't constantly taking information so it cannot be as accurate about the amount of calories you burn. In addition if it is a treadmill that doesn't ask for weight and age, it has really no way of telling your calorie burn.
  • aippolito1
    aippolito1 Posts: 4,894 Member
    If you're losing weight, you're burning less calories than when you started. Could be that.
  • AndriaLL
    AndriaLL Posts: 162
    My understanding is that your heart rate monitor is going to be the most accurate--but only if you keep it updated with your most current weight. As you get in better shape, the same exercise should start to feel easier, and your heart rate not get up as high as you are not working as hard to do the same thing. A machine or MFP is not able to detect this, and will always tell you the same calories (all other variable remaining constant) even though you will be burning a little less doing the same thing as you get in shape.

    When I don't have my HRM to tell me calories (swimming for example as mine is not waterproof), I just go with the lower # of a machine or MFP just to be safe....
  • DJH510
    DJH510 Posts: 114 Member
    Calories burnt is pretty much just a matter of how much 'work' you've performed. A HRM has no advantage in determining how much work you've done, as how fast your heart beats is no indication of it: the heart rate of an Olympic athlete of my weight would barely change if they did my average run, whilst my heart rate would be very high. Yet the calories burned would be pretty much identical for both of us.
    Moral of the story; any device that knows your weight has as good a chance as any other of estimating how many calories you've burned, so be safe and go with the lowest reading.
  • bstamps12
    bstamps12 Posts: 1,184
    If you didn't input your weight and age into the machine, it will always be way off. Even if you input that, the HRM will still be a closer calorie count. If the HRM, MFP, and the machine are all very different, take an average. Since your example was so close with MFP and the HRM, go with that in this case and forget about the machine.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories