Treadmill Walking

Treadmills used to have a rep for reading high.
Is your treadmill level?
Try walking on an incline for a much higher cal burn .

Honestly, any of these things are approximations. That those two are that close is sort of reassuring that either one might be in the ballpark (no guarantees, though). Neither sounds crazy-high or crazy-low to me.

A very few exercises (cycling is one) can be power-metered (watts measured) to get a reasonably accurate calorie estimate, because the range of efficiency (skill-based difference between people, loosely) is statistically small.

To be honest, I think you'd be fine logging either one, or the average. I'd simply encourage you to use a consistent estimating approach: Pick one of those options, and stick with it.

Background: Usually, we encourage people to stick with a sensible MFP calorie goal for 4-6 weeks (whole menstrual periods for those to whom that applies), including a consistent method of logging exercise. At that point, a person can average their scale-weight results over the time period, compare with their goals, and adjust base calorie intake if/as necessary to dial in the desired loss rate. (Even then, the first week or two on a new regimen can show weird water retention effects in either direction. If the first week or two look wildly unusual, it can be good to ignore those, go for another week or two to accumulate less-"noisy" data.)

It sounds like you have a pretty consistent exercise routine. The approach described in the previous paragraph can work especially well in those circumstances (as compared with people like me, for whom exercise is seasonal, weather-dependent, or otherwise quite variable - but it worked even for me).

Think of it in arithmetic terms: You have a 93 calorie spread per day (3 x 21) between the two estimates. That's a difference of 651 calories per week, with (guessing) even-ish odds about which one is the more accurate. 651 calories is 0.186 pounds a week theoretical difference in weight loss rate. To me, that's not worth stressing over: Pick one way of estimating, log that way consistently, go on with life.

Our individual daily life calorie expenditure probably differs by more than 91 calories a fair amount of the time (we went to the grocery store and walked the aisles, or didn't; we did a bigger house cleaning vs. more TV or other sedentary time, etc.). The average woman burns maybe 2000 calories a day, +/-, some of us more, some of us less. 91 calories is around 4.6% of that. It's not IMO worth agonizing over, won't make or break one's total effort.

Personally, given two different sources of an exercise calorie estimate, if I can't assess which is more likely to be accurate, I usually go with the lower one when my goal is losing weight. (I might make a different choice if I was being super-aggressive about trying to lose weight fast, but I don't do that, at least not on purpose!) That "use the lower estimate" is not more accurate, but it's practical, to my view. YMMV.

Best wishes!

djaxon1 wrote: »

Treadmill could be right .
If 4 or 5 are % then you could cross check with https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

If one assumes that the distance measurement from the treadmill is accurate . . . . and the treadmill incline can be translated into "grade" for that estimator (or assume flat ground for lower estimate).

I think that's a good source for walk/run estimates over physical distances (with the Energy box set to "net" for MFP purposes), though it's still just an estimate. For treadmill, we're still very dependent on the treadmill's calibration/estimation.