MFP calorie estimate or HR monitor

tavenne323
tavenne323 Posts: 332 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Today I used my HR monitor to get my calories on a hike. I've never actually used it for that before, didn't even know it was an options until I pulled out the manual for a refresher. Anyway, the hike was 90 mins. Mostly uphill on the way out, mostly downhill on the way back. Total of 4 miles. I jogged the last mile because it's a wider, flatter portion. My watch read 1870 calories, Avg HR 150, Max HR 179, Min HR 99. I stopped the timer when I stopped at the top and on the way back at the water fall.

MFP estimates 1125 calories, I was only carrying about 2L of water and a jacket, less than 10 lbs.

Which woud you go with? I want to underestimate for calorie intake sake, but I also was to be accurate. It's a Timex Ironman Triathlon HR monitor.

Replies

  • ashleyoh33
    ashleyoh33 Posts: 85 Member
    In theory, the HRM should be more accurate. MFP is an estimate for the average joe and doesn't take into account your age, weight, gender, or effort level. But if you're concerned about such a large difference, don't eat back all of your exercise calories.
  • Newbegining216
    Newbegining216 Posts: 9
    Personally, would go with the heart rate monitor. You have to figure that the HRM is adjusted to your body, where as MFP is going off of a generic person. hope I helped!
  • missybct
    missybct Posts: 321 Member
    I would go with the HRM, purely because MFP doesn't account for load, elevation or weather (forward wind = harder to run/walk/cycle) - it's a generic calculation based on basic statistics.

    HRM are not fool proof, which is why quite a few people do not eat them ALL back (I eat some depending on day) and can be a bit generic for certain measurements (max HR is based on basic calculation meaning the "zonal" is the same for everyone unless you change it) but generally speaking, I would always take the HR calculation - MFP can overestimate and underestimate depending on activity and duration.

    If you are concerned as the two values are quite wide, go somewhere in the middle but maybe write down both values in the "notes" section for future reference. I know I do that if there is a large discrepancy between two values.

    I use a Polar FT4.
  • tavenne323
    tavenne323 Posts: 332 Member
    Thanks everyone. I guess I thought the MFP estimates calculated in my weight, since I do log it. I know my HR monitor does, and I entered in my max HR.

    I don't think I could eat back that many calories anyway...that like another whole day! But I will feel better about eating a piece of cake at a grad party tonight.
  • Newbegining216
    Newbegining216 Posts: 9
    you eat that cake girl! and ENJOY it!! you worked hard today!!!
  • Jerrypeoples
    Jerrypeoples Posts: 1,541 Member
    ive had the opposite readings from my HR and the machines (and MFP is even higher)

    1 hour of elliptical
    MFP - 936 cals
    Machine - 800
    HRM - 500

    Seems to me the HRM should be the more accurate but who knows
  • cwaters120
    cwaters120 Posts: 354 Member
    Like others, I would use your HRM. While at times MFP is lower than my HRM, more often it is WAY higher. I would rather use my HRM which, for me, seems more accurate to the individual. I hope you enjoyed your hike! I love to hike the mountains here :bigsmile:
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    if your HRM is set up with your stats including VO2max it will be the best. Not all of them do that, but you can "fiddle" your age and height to get the right outcome on most - there's a thread about a spreadsheet by heybales on here somewhere that explains it all.
  • MoJokes
    MoJokes Posts: 691
    i'd go with hrm, for example mfp will say i burned 300-400 calories. When hrm will say i burned 700-800. I go with hrm as i know after a workout i am done, my tank is empty too.
  • rdcphone572
    rdcphone572 Posts: 75 Member
    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    Rough comparison online
  • MoJokes
    MoJokes Posts: 691
    i'd go with hrm, for example mfp will say i burned 300-400 calories. When hrm will say i burned 700-800. I go with hrm as i know after a workout i am done, my tank is empty too.
  • mtfr810
    mtfr810 Posts: 136 Member
    HRM for any aerobic activity is way more accurate than MFP since it really has no way of knowing how hard you're actually working. The pulse is representative of just how hard you're working. Go with that. Eat at least some of those calories back to... you earned it!
  • CurvaciousBeautyToBe
    CurvaciousBeautyToBe Posts: 100 Member
    Heart Rate Monitor for the win! :)
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    Today I used my HR monitor to get my calories on a hike. I've never actually used it for that before, didn't even know it was an options until I pulled out the manual for a refresher. Anyway, the hike was 90 mins. Mostly uphill on the way out, mostly downhill on the way back. Total of 4 miles. I jogged the last mile because it's a wider, flatter portion. My watch read 1870 calories, Avg HR 150, Max HR 179, Min HR 99. I stopped the timer when I stopped at the top and on the way back at the water fall.

    MFP estimates 1125 calories, I was only carrying about 2L of water and a jacket, less than 10 lbs.

    Which woud you go with? I want to underestimate for calorie intake sake, but I also was to be accurate. It's a Timex Ironman Triathlon HR monitor.

    I'd go with the HRM.

    As for logging it, I would only log 80% of the reported calories. This way you take into account the calories you would have burned anyway by just sitting on the couch for that time period and to allow room for error. But that's just me. Example:

    Based on my BMR, I burn roughly 1.2 calories a minute.
    If my HRM gives me a calorie burn of 1000 for 60 minutes, I would log 800 calories.
    Based on my BMR, I would have burned roughly around 72 calories for 60 minutes had I done nothing. This leaves me a 128 calorie gap to account for any errors in estimating and keeps me from double counting the 72 that I would have burned anyway.
  • southofgrace
    southofgrace Posts: 3
    HRM is def more accurate. I wish it were MFP! My HRM says I burn 320ish calories doing a 5 mile run in 45 mins and MFP has be at about 500! booo!!!!
  • wnbrice
    wnbrice Posts: 244 Member
    I always go HRM, love it so much.
  • tavenne323
    tavenne323 Posts: 332 Member
    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    Rough comparison online

    That's a good tool to have, but doesn't really work well with hiking and I was climbing over rocks, and going up some steep hills.
  • tavenne323
    tavenne323 Posts: 332 Member
    HRM is def more accurate. I wish it were MFP! My HRM says I burn 320ish calories doing a 5 mile run in 45 mins and MFP has be at about 500! booo!!!!

    I'm going to test it out on the elliptical sometime this week and compare. For some reason the machines I use at the gym don't pick up my HR monitor's signal. And I just found the watch this weekend.

Categories