Need experienced help HRM v. MFP database w/ specifics

MamaRiss
MamaRiss Posts: 481 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I want to log as accurately as possible. I read on here every day that the MFP database over estimates calorie burns, and HRM are the way to go ( though some say only for steady state cardio). Well I have a chest strap HRM, and it puts my burns even higher than MFP does.
For example todays workout (45minute circuit training with 5 & 8lb dumbells and resistance band)
MFP puts me at 370 calories burned (which is what I log for food purposes)
My heart rate monitor but me at 485
My heart was 123-135 bpm for 5:32
136-147 for 17:18
148-160 for 14:48
161-172 for 5:32
173-186 for 0:40

Would you log MFP's burn, or the HRM burn?

Replies

  • MamaRiss
    MamaRiss Posts: 481 Member
    Oh, and they are both working off the same height, weight, age and gender. 5'4", 136, 29, F
  • Lalalindaloo
    Lalalindaloo Posts: 204 Member
    Not super experienced here, but my HRM does something similar. It actually gives me a higher calorie amount that the MFP database for my runs. That said, I did go through the HRM setup to determine my burn settings. I run for about 65 minutes (a pretty slow run with occasional OMGI'mgoingtodie breaks). It logs me at about 615 cals usually.

    That's what I log because it syncs to MFP. Most days I eat maybe a couple hundred of those calories because I still can't bring myself to trust it. My HRM is a Wahoo, by the way.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    HRMs give inflated burns for interval training. The device only counts heart beats then puts that data point into a formula based on the exercise you tell it you're performing ... when your intensity drops but the heart rate remains elevated, it can't tell the difference. This is even more noticeable in the low end HRMs that get so many rave reviews on MFP ... they simply have fewer data points considered (usually) in their formulas.

    They come closer to accurate for certain steady state cardio events ... but are still taking limited data points and plugging them into a formula of dubious precision ... then usually reporting gross, not net, calories burned.

Categories