HRM accuracy?

potatocar

Please help me out here.
My dad has a Garmin watch with a HRM, and I used it today for the first time when I went running.

All together approx 45 minutes:
5 minutes walking
-10 minutes running (about 9 km/h)
3 minutes walking
-10 minutes running
3 minutes walking
-10 minutes running
5 minutes walking

I'm 126 lbs, 5'3", not in shape though and I doubt I could've ran more.

MFP says I burn 331 calories if I log: Running (jogging), 9.6 kph for about 35 minutes.
But the HRM I wore said I burned about 500 calories.

500 just really seems like a lot. How trustworthy is this HRM thingy? How many calories would seem realistic?

AprilRN10

It depends if the HRM was set to your stats. I am of the opinion that a properly functioning and good quality HRM is always better than MFP estimates simply because they go by your HR, so your effort is taken into account. MFP estimates do not account for effort, it is just a lump estimate.

potatocar

Oh, I didn't think to do that, so it was set to my dad's stats. I'll do it next time then.
Though do you think 400 calories is a realistic estimate?

DavPul

Why do people insist on dropping $100 on these things and then doubt the results?

potatocar

I wouldn't. It's my dad's.

LifeJacketWaterJogger

Here on ,mfp you are using other people stuff, that's what they put in, mfp does not calculate calories, we have to enter it ourselves.

yarwell

Oh, I didn't think to do that, so it was set to my dad's stats. I'll do it next time then.
Though do you think 400 calories is a realistic estimate?

that's about what I would clock doing something similar.

Remember it includes your resting metabolic rate and MFP already accounts for that an an activity factor, so I subtract 1.2 calories per minute for that.

Maija1985

Id guess, that ur dad is bigger and heavier than u, so no- it wouldnt be accurate. U have to put in ur info- age, weight-to calculate calories ore or less accurately Im heavier and taller than u- 168cm (5"6 and 72 kg(around 150 lb), in an hr running/very fast walking use up around 500 kcal. Id guess in 45 mins 350 kcals...

DavPul

Here on ,mfp you are using other people stuff, that's what they put in, mfp does not calculate calories, we have to enter it ourselves.

ORLY?

Ant_the_old_keith_lemon

its all about weight.

a heavy person would have to expend more energy propelling themselves that a lighter person. If your father had set it up for his weight that the figure it quotes would be questionable.

to be fair all i use my HRM for is average heart rate over a period, max heart rate and keeping in a specific training zone.

if your aim is to loose weight you should try to keep out of the higher zones (from experience) and stay in an aerobic state - forget the ft burning zone, thats for seriously obeese people who can barely maintain a raised heartrate.

i would use the figures of calorie burn only as a personal reference point to see if you have gone further than the last workout, but as said above if the watch is set up correctly they will be a damn sight closer than the assumptions made on the MFP database.

potatocar

Id guess, that ur dad is bigger and heavier than u, so no- it wouldnt be accurate. U have to put in ur info- age, weight-to calculate calories ore or less accurately Im heavier and taller than u- 168cm (5"6 and 72 kg(around 150 lb), in an hr running/very fast walking use up around 500 kcal. Id guess in 45 mins 350 kcals...

He's about 22 lbs (10 kg) heavier and a bit taller, he is in very (VERY) good shape.