three different calorie totals ( by far ) Just average them?

Options
motown13
motown13 Posts: 688 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I walked / jogged on a treadmill today for 35 minutes.

Treadmill calorie count is 145 calories burned ( it does not ask for my weight )

MFP says 172 calories burned. ( maybe it counts my weight? I don't know )

Then comes the one out of the blue, the one I would have guessed would be the most accurate..... I am using RuntasticPro on my iPhone. That says I burned 575 calories ( I am 263 pounds )

So should I average the 3 and make it best match what MFP says as far as time exercised?

The average is 297.33 for the 3.

Replies

  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    If you eat back exercise calories I would use the lowest estimate, that way you don't eat more by a mistake, and if you are a little under it can make up for measurement error on the food intake side of things.
  • ktekc
    ktekc Posts: 879 Member
    Options
    I always took the lowest before i had my fitbit. especially if one is way different cause it might make the average way higher than it really is. I'd rather log 150 and have it be 300 than the other way around. . unless you don't eat exercise calories back then whichever one you like.
  • litsy3
    litsy3 Posts: 783 Member
    Options
    How much distance did you cover? And what proportion of the time was spent walking vs jogging?
  • motown13
    motown13 Posts: 688 Member
    Options
    litsy3 wrote: »
    How much distance did you cover? And what proportion of the time was spent walking vs jogging?


    Well, today was my first time even trying to run in 20+ years... I did 35 minutes, with 2.5 minutes of running.
  • CajunTess
    CajunTess Posts: 268 Member
    Options
    I often get differing info, too. I usually use my MapMyFitness app (free version), and input my activity. This will take your height, weight, etc. into account. It's best to find one source that you can use for all activity. If I can't find my activity listed there, I sometimes use this site: https://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/cbc
    It will cover things like cleaning my house, etc. I try not to eat back my calories burned, so really it doesn't matter to me if it is completely accurate. I log it everyday for record-keeping purposes and so that I can see which type of activity helps me to reach my goals. Hope this helps you.
  • drachfit
    drachfit Posts: 217 Member
    Options
    it sounds like the runtastic app is way off. these things are just random formulas that don't always work for every case. i would guess it is being thrown off by your weight or what you entered for speed or distance.

    just log the smaller number, making a habit of always underestimating will help you lose a bit more on this journey and help cancel out any logging errors you might make.
  • litsy3
    litsy3 Posts: 783 Member
    Options
    motown13 wrote: »
    litsy3 wrote: »
    How much distance did you cover? And what proportion of the time was spent walking vs jogging?


    Well, today was my first time even trying to run in 20+ years... I did 35 minutes, with 2.5 minutes of running.

    Okay, so try using this http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
    Use the 'net' option (so you don't double-count the calories you'd have been burning anyway) and enter it as a walk since you didn't spend that much time running. If you were averaging 4mph it calculates you burned 284 calories.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Avergaging just means you're using three random numbers to make one random number. There is no increased accuracy. If you don't have a treadmill that allows you to input weight (or is a cheapo model), doing walk/run workouts will be problematic (from a calorie counting standpoint) because the two types of activities have two different rates of calorie expenditure. At your weight, if you are walking briskly and throwing in some running, you can estimate about 8 calories/min for your exercise and that should be close enough.
  • tulips_and_tea
    tulips_and_tea Posts: 5,716 Member
    Options
    motown13 wrote: »
    litsy3 wrote: »
    How much distance did you cover? And what proportion of the time was spent walking vs jogging?


    Well, today was my first time even trying to run in 20+ years... I did 35 minutes, with 2.5 minutes of running.

    Well, kudos for making it for 35 min. after not running for that many years! Make you stretch a LOT tonight and hope you aren't too sore tomorrow. Keep it up, though!
  • blues4miles
    blues4miles Posts: 1,481 Member
    Options
    litsy3 wrote: »
    motown13 wrote: »
    litsy3 wrote: »
    How much distance did you cover? And what proportion of the time was spent walking vs jogging?


    Well, today was my first time even trying to run in 20+ years... I did 35 minutes, with 2.5 minutes of running.

    Okay, so try using this http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
    Use the 'net' option (so you don't double-count the calories you'd have been burning anyway) and enter it as a walk since you didn't spend that much time running. If you were averaging 4mph it calculates you burned 284 calories.

    Second this site. My rule of them is never more than 10 calories / minute. As an obese, beginner runner I can max out at about 10 calories / minute. If an estimate gives me more than that, I always drop it down. The difference in what I count between walking and jogging is also pretty substantial since generally jogging gets my heart rate up a lot higher than walking does.

Categories