Question about Calorie burning

TheTeeWhy
TheTeeWhy Posts: 186
edited September 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
So, I just did 30 solid minutes of jogging with some walking rest periods, on the display it said I burned 269 calories. Which is good with me, better than what i'd have burnt if I just sat here and played PS3

I go onto the exercise logger dealio, find the 5mph 12minute mile. It by default says I burnt 452.

Anyone have any insight on this? I know the displays arent usually accurate, but... 452 seems like a lot.

Replies

  • hush7hush
    hush7hush Posts: 2,273 Member
    452 does seem like a lot.

    Was the 269 from a HRM?
  • drrif
    drrif Posts: 28
    269 is correct
  • gaeljo
    gaeljo Posts: 223 Member
    U burn 100 calories per mile approx regardless of speed.
  • TheTeeWhy
    TheTeeWhy Posts: 186
    Alright, I guess my display is one of the few that is correct then.

    Thanks alot guys, thats what I love about this forum, people hit ya right back very quickly.
  • barbiex3
    barbiex3 Posts: 1,036 Member
    it's because you are bigger than the tredmill thinks. Tredmill is auto going to tell you the cals for someone who is 150. When you weigh 150 you burn less than someone who burns 200. MFP is accounting for your weight in the calorie burn
  • drrif
    drrif Posts: 28
    use this

    http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/4/4_1/94.shtml


    Earlier replies not correct. Specially same calories for 1 mile regardless of speed, that is wrong!!!!
  • TheTeeWhy
    TheTeeWhy Posts: 186
    So would the treadmills display be correct barbie? Or would the number MFP gives be more close to the correct one?

    I dont wanna be annoying I just want to be sure so I dont end up living a lie D: hah
  • hush7hush
    hush7hush Posts: 2,273 Member
    Did the treadmill allow you to input your weight and age?
  • TheTeeWhy
    TheTeeWhy Posts: 186
    Did the treadmill allow you to input your weight and age?
    it did not
  • hush7hush
    hush7hush Posts: 2,273 Member
    Did the treadmill allow you to input your weight and age?
    it did not

    Then in all honesty, neither are very accurate.

    Do you plan on eating your calories back? If not, use which ever number you prefer.

    But maybe take an average of the two? You ned a good HRM. [:
  • TheTeeWhy
    TheTeeWhy Posts: 186
    Did the treadmill allow you to input your weight and age?
    it did not

    Then in all honesty, neither are very accurate.

    Do you plan on eating your calories back? If not, use which ever number you prefer.

    But maybe take an average of the two? You ned a good HRM. [:
    I dont really plan on having much more to eat/drink tonight, so any calories I eat would probably not accumulate to much.

    maybe I'll do the average of the two till I get a HRM unless someone suggests something else. Thanks hush good thinkin

    I am gonna hit up a hrm soon though I think, they can't be very expensive right?
  • BranMuffin21
    BranMuffin21 Posts: 157 Member
    Got mine at future shop online for 79.99, its got everything and its pink!
  • pinkita
    pinkita Posts: 779 Member
    I highly recommend a HRM too, and most people recommend the Polar brand. I got a Polar FT4 from amazon for about $65-70, but I've seen others on this site recommend different sporting goods stores if you prefer to buy in person. In my case, MFP drastically underestimates the calories I burn, so having the HRM takes the guess work out of it.
  • hush7hush
    hush7hush Posts: 2,273 Member
    Did the treadmill allow you to input your weight and age?
    it did not

    Then in all honesty, neither are very accurate.

    Do you plan on eating your calories back? If not, use which ever number you prefer.

    But maybe take an average of the two? You ned a good HRM. [:
    I dont really plan on having much more to eat/drink tonight, so any calories I eat would probably not accumulate to much.

    maybe I'll do the average of the two till I get a HRM unless someone suggests something else. Thanks hush good thinkin

    I am gonna hit up a hrm soon though I think, they can't be very expensive right?

    Yeah, an average will give you a pretty good estimate, at least until you get a hrm.

    If you plan to eat the calories back in the future, I'd stick to the lower number to make sure you're not overeating.

    They're not very expensive, and definitely an awesome investment in your health!! [:
  • TheTeeWhy
    TheTeeWhy Posts: 186
    Right on, good point about the overeating thing too. Thanks for the information :) Can I add you as a friend?
  • hush7hush
    hush7hush Posts: 2,273 Member
    Right on, good point about the overeating thing too. Thanks for the information :) Can I add you as a friend?


    Absolutely!! [:
  • UltraRunnerGale
    UltraRunnerGale Posts: 346 Member
    Driff is right. You burn approx 100 calories per mile regardless of speed. It's the whole speed vs. distance thing. The faster you run, the less time you run. The slower you run, the longer you run. :flowerforyou:
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    I don't use a HRM, but typically go by machine readouts (when I enter my weight) or the calculations from runkeeper.com when I run outside (takes into account my terrain as well as my time, distance and weight). The calculations from runkeeper are typically very close to MFP's estimates.

    Interesting article about the "100 calories a mile" myth: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html
This discussion has been closed.

Categories