This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Walking outdoors vs. treadmill walking calorie burn

Can anybody tell me why there is a huge discrepancy in calorie burn while walking on a treadmill vs. walking outdoors? See attached; the image on the left is from a treadmill, the right one is outdoors. Same pace, duration, average HR, but 108 kcal for an hour on a treadmill and 265 kcal outdoors.

I weigh 58 kg, so I think the outdoors estimate is inflated for me. The treadmill one is definitely an underestimate. Using MET I should be burning about 200 gross kcal per hour.

0 JoeD over 3 years ago

Have you looked at the Graphs

The Outdoor Workout will have Higher Peaks, Whereas the Indoor Workout will have Lower Peaks. (Even though the Average is the same)

You can Expect an Accuracy of between 7% and 10% from Sports Watches in General.

I do believe that an Outdoor Walk at the same speed as a treadmill walk will burn more calories because of hills etc etc

Many Parameters are used to calculate Calories Burnt During an Activity including Heart Rate.

www.dcrainmaker.com/.../how-calorie-measurement-works-on-garmin.html

0 MarttaHP over 3 years ago in reply to JoeD

You're correct. Looking at the graphs my HR remained between 75 and 80 bpm for the majority of my treadmill walk. For the outdoor walk it varied more like between 70 and 90 bpm. But can it really account for such a big discrepancy between the two calorie burn numbers? The latter was 2.5 times higher than the former. And why are both numbers so very off from what using METs would give me?