Technology has provided numerous measurement tools for caloric expenditure. The purpose of this study was to different caloric expenditure measurement tools available to the general public. Twelve, healthy college aged students (mean age±SD=23.58±3.12, mean weight±SD=74.66±16.75 kg, mean height±SD=171.87±12.65 cm) walked on a level treadmill at 2, 3, and 4 mph for 8 minutes at each speed. Caloric expenditure (kilocalories) was measured using a metabolic cart (VO2) (Medical Graphics, Minneapolis, MN), a Caltrac™ (CT) (Vital signs, Gays Mills, WI), a Digiwalker™ (DW) (DW-200, Yamax, Tokyo, Japan), and a Biotrainer® (BT) (IM Systems, Baltimore, MD). Subjects walked for 8 minutes, stopped while data was recorded, then proceeded to walk at the next higher speed. All data was transformed to kilocalories for comparison. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to compare the measurement tools' kilocalorie determination at the different speeds. If a significant difference between the measurements was seen, Wilks' Lambda was used to compare the means. At the 2 mph speed, a significant difference (p<0.0001) was seen between the measurements, with the CT significantly higher than the BT (p<0.025) (32.33±10.25 kcal vs. 23.28±6.13 kcal). At the 3 mph speed, a significant difference was found (p<0.0001), with the DW significantly higher then the BT (p<0.011) (45.44±10.08 kcal vs. 37.18±8.65 kcal) and VO2 (p<0.14) (45.44±10.08 kcal vs. 35.90±10.30). At the 4 mph speed, a significant difference was found (p<0.0001), with the BT significantly greater than VO2 (p<0.02) (59.35±12.88 kcal vs. 51.91±14.03 kcal). Although this data was collected on a small number of subjects, it appears that the Biotrainer may not be as accurate at measuring kilocalories of activity than the other measurement tools. Additional research is needed to determine the validity of these measurements, as well as a larger subject population for comparison.Keyword(s): exercise/fitness, measurement/evaluation, physical activity