I'm so confused! Some advice please!

kaysielehmann
kaysielehmann Posts: 4
in Fitness and Exercise
Ok! I'm so confused!
I just did a 30 minute workout on the treadmill and got three different results!
I walked on average of 4.5kph (2km in the 30 mins)
My treadmill (basic model) said 134 calories burnt
My Fitness Pal (the closest I could get to the rates) said about 167 calories burnt.
My heart rate monitor (with chest strap and calories burnt function set to my stats) said 682 calories burnt.
I am 5'3". 218lbs. My average heart rate was 145bpm. I have only been exercising for 2 weeks after years of a sedentary lifestyle.
Can anyone shed some insight to which would be the most accurate? I've owned the heart rate monitor for 3 days and if it's faulty, I need to take it back.

Thanks in advanced.

Kaysie.

Replies

  • KristiRTT
    KristiRTT Posts: 346 Member
    Something on your heart rate monitor is set incorrectly, or you started the timer too early by mistake. There is no way at your height and weight you could have burnt over 300 calories in 30 min by walking. It's just impossible! I would reset all the stats on your heart rate monitor!
  • drop_it_like_a_squat
    drop_it_like_a_squat Posts: 377 Member
    Something on your heart rate monitor is set incorrectly, or you started the timer too early by mistake. There is no way at your height and weight you could have burnt over 300 calories in 30 min by walking. It's just impossible! I would reset all the stats on your heart rate monitor!

    Yup.
    Until you fixed the issue I'd use the average of what MFP and the treadmill tell you.
  • lucan07
    lucan07 Posts: 509
    At a similar heart rate AVG 146 bpm in 30 mins 10k on elliptical high resistance I burned 424 calories, I was a little heavier than you.

    Check entries of your stats into HRM, and is it a model with chest strap?
  • kaysielehmann
    kaysielehmann Posts: 4
    Thanks. I knew the watch was way toooo high. I'd would've expected around 140-150 calories burnt, especially when I mowed our lawn for 90 minutes yesterday and apparently burnt 627 calories according to the watch. Just checked the settings on the watch and they were all correct, but I have reset them anyway. Will do another walk on the treadmill tomorrow and if I get similar results I'll be taking it back.
    Thanks for your help. I'm a newbie at this fitness stuff so I thought I'd ask the question in case there was something I was missing.
  • kaysielehmann
    kaysielehmann Posts: 4
    Lucan, yes it has a chest strap.
  • ldelahanty1974
    ldelahanty1974 Posts: 25 Member
    I would probably take the monitor back...that seems really high.
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    Thanks. I knew the watch was way toooo high. I'd would've expected around 140-150 calories burnt, especially when I mowed our lawn for 90 minutes yesterday and apparently burnt 627 calories according to the watch. Just checked the settings on the watch and they were all correct, but I have reset them anyway. Will do another walk on the treadmill tomorrow and if I get similar results I'll be taking it back.
    Thanks for your help. I'm a newbie at this fitness stuff so I thought I'd ask the question in case there was something I was missing.

    I am guessing that there is no chest strap with your HRM? (edited to say oops you answered that already)

    Is it new and if so then if you still get very high readings from it take it back and complain

    I use my HRM occasionally on walks and find that I burn about 70% of what MFP tells me
  • lucan07
    lucan07 Posts: 509
    Check your results here http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

    I use this then convert to Nett on same site to get my burn as my Polar FT1 HRM only gives me Time/AVG/MaxHR
  • kaysielehmann
    kaysielehmann Posts: 4
    Thanks again Lucan. Checked it out and the net caloric burn was 205.
    Definitely thinking it's the monitor now!
    Thank you for your help everyone!!

Categories