Heart rate monitor- calories burned- confusion.

NattySchmatty

I have read that the calories burned on MFP are often overestimated. I also read that getting a HRM would help. I started using one and found that the calories burned on the HRM are quite a bit higher than the MFP estimates- I was expecting quite the opposite. I have also read that HRMs over estimate calories. I feel very confused. Which estimate should I use? Should I stop entering exercise all together and just eat my calories to goal and continue to work out as I have been? Any help or advice is appreciated.

brandiuntz

HRM's can be fairly accurate if used for steady-state cardio (cycling, running), but they're not perfect and some brands/models seem to do a better job than others. HRM's are not accurate for other exercises.

What many people do is eat back a third to half of their exercise calories. You can also consider using the TDEE - 20% (or 10, or other percentage) to set your calorie goals and not eat back your exercise calories.

Another idea is to google the exercise you do and see if there are some references to what typical calorie burns are for that exercise at your current weight.

There can be some trial and error with finding the correct intake to meet your weight loss goal.

Train4Foodz

I use a Polar FT7 and I love it!
I find it very accurate, the results I get seem constant to the burns I should be making.

That said, a device can only be accurate if the data it has been given has been kept up to date. Keeping your accurate weight, etc in the settings helps ensure accuracy!

HRMs work from your heart rate (that's a given right?), the calculations it makes are entirely based on your stats but because it is measuring your heart rate consistently throughout exercise.. it will be a LOT more accurate that the estimated burns found on any cardio machine that gives a 'general estimation'.

A tip is to do your research and if you decide to buy one, get one that has the features you will find most useful for the exercise you do!

All the best.

Adam

loratliff

As others have said, it takes a little trial and error. Like you, I burn more than MFP estimates—closer to 125 calories per mile running, whereas the standard estimate is 100 calories per mile. For me, I've learned that my HRM is accurate and I've actually lost more inches/fat by increasing food intake (was quite possibly under eating before) since then.

Don't overthink it. Use your HRM and eat back just half the calories if you're concerned, or try eating them all back for a few weeks and see if you're still seeing losses.

Eleanor_82

I was worried about this as well because I do a lot of fitness DVD workouts which probably don't count as steady state cardio because different sections within one DVD are harder/ more intense than others. I'd really relied on my FT4 monitor for the last 8 months but maybe that's one of the reasons I've hovered around the same weight since November- believing the calorie burn count it suggested

gusinott

I recently replaced my old HRM (Timex Ironman) with a Polar FT80, and it's still giving me a much higher calorie burn than MFP. And another member suggested I trust the HRM, since it's basing its count on my actual fitness level, as stated above, and not some general data. I often refer to fitclick.com (http://www.fitclick.com/calories_burned?srch=Strength+Training) to compare results, and these are more often closer to those of my HRM than MFP is.

MeanderingMammal

NattySchmatty wrote: »

I started using one and found that the calories burned on the HRM are quite a bit higher than the MFP estimates- I was expecting quite the opposite.

It depends what you're doing as your phys, for most people using the general boards it's not really an appropriate tool to estimate calories expended. If you're doing distance running, cycling, swimming, rowing or the like it's going to be reasonably close in the estimation. For fitness DVDs, circuit training and stuff like that an HRM will over-estimate your expenditure.

How you use the information depends on your objectives. If you're interested in weight loss then I'd suggest using the more conservative number.

The key point is to use something consistently, track your actuals against your objectives. If you're losing faster then compensate by eating more, if you're behin plan then eat less back.

Note that an HRM isn't going to have a consistent error.

NattySchmatty

Thanks so much!! I have a polar FT4, and I am doing fitness DVDs and circuit training. I appreciate all the input. I have definitely been using the more conservative number and I have been eating back the calories but I've been stuck at the same weight for about 3 weeks. I am going to try eating back a smaller portion of the calories from now on and see if that gives me some results. Again thanks so much for the input.

NattySchmatty

gusinott wrote: »

I recently replaced my old HRM (Timex Ironman) with a Polar FT80, and it's still giving me a much higher calorie burn than MFP. And another member suggested I trust the HRM, since it's basing its count on my actual fitness level, as stated above, and not some general data. I often refer to fitclick.com (http://www.fitclick.com/calories_burned?srch=Strength+Training) to compare results, and these are more often closer to those of my HRM than MFP is.

Thanks! I will definitely check this out.

NattySchmatty

I've upped my calories by 150 a day and I am not going to eat back exercise. Hopefully this will help me out. I am stating a 30 day routine with 6 days a week of cardio and 3 days of strength training. Again I appreciate the help and support!!