HRM or MFP....which one is correct?

David___D

So I have a question and wasn't sure whether this is the place but will give it a go.

I use a Polar HRM and this measures calories burnt during exercise, yesterday I ran my fastest 5k for a long while, took me just over 25 mins, and I went to enter the information in to my Exercise diary it told me I should have burnt 430 calories, yet my montior tells me I burnt 307, seem a large discrepancy?

How come if all settings and measurements are the same on MFP and in the monitor?

Any ideas, not an important one I know but I was just curious?

JCThayer85

I never go with MFP's burn numbers. Your HRM is taking much more into consideration that MFP does. I use runtastic and it tracks pace, elevation, speed, and HR; the numbers I get from there are much more accurate.

micqs

I would go with the HRM. I mean I am new to HRM but it uses the heart rate to determine how hard your body is working. I think MFP is quite generous sometimes in part with the fact it cant tell you if youve been slacking during working out. I can do 10 pushups in a minute or I can do 20 pushups in a minute, doesnt burn the same amount of calories (bad example, I know). With everything Ive read, HRMs are quite accurate. I just got one and its accuracy rate is -1/+1. But I dont know for sure. Maybe someone has a better answer

RobinvdM

Youre HRM will always be more accurate than MFP. MFP uses an estimated generalised average as opposed to your HRM that actually notes your heart's BPM and how long you maintain that to give you a more accurate estimate on your workouts. The trick with working out is your body becomes conditioned to your workouts so if you do 40 minutes of the same workout every day for let's say 6 months, over the course of time you will burn less calories because your body has adapted. That is why HRMs are a more accurate tool.

G Luck

David___D

Thanks for the replies all, yes I was banking on the HRM, but was curious as why MFP measurements were so far out, I mean a hundred calories does seem a massive difference when every calorie counts :-)

Probably should be just content in the fact that I am running again!

krisjohnson121

I find that MFP's calorie burn rate are way too high. There are lots of times it can be double! I always go with what the gym equipment says over MFP. Congrats on the 5K!

poohpoohpeapod

I would trust my HRM. It is measuring YOUR heart rate. MFP is more general. Neither is 100 percent, but hrm is closer.

__Di__

So I have a question and wasn't sure whether this is the place but will give it a go.

I use a Polar HRM and this measures calories burnt during exercise, yesterday I ran my fastest 5k for a long while, took me just over 25 mins, and I went to enter the information in to my Exercise diary it told me I should have burnt 430 calories, yet my montior tells me I burnt 307, seem a large discrepancy?

How come if all settings and measurements are the same on MFP and in the monitor?

Any ideas, not an important one I know but I was just curious?

Always go by what your HRM says, it is personally tailored to you with all your details input on it.

307 calories burned for a 25min 5k run is about right btw, because I do similar with an almost identical calorie burn.

kazzsjourney

Go by your HRM if you have one.

benol1

HRM.
MFP's calorie calculations are so far out that they're unhelpful.
kind regards,

Ben