HRM vs MFP database.......why so close and than so far?

peeaanuut

I really need someone to help me figure out this HRM numbers issue. Wore it for 2 exercises today. The first being the bike. I did a 5k in 15 minutes. So thats 12 mph. My HRM says I did 331 calories. MFP say 311. So thats close. Then I did a mile on the treadmill. HRM says 445 cal in the 21min. thats about a 2.5mph pace. There was a kick to 3.5 and 4.0 towards the end but only for a few seconds. Now, MFP says 181 cal. Even if I choose the 3.0 option which is high, it says 200. Why is the walk so far off while the bike is just about right on?

Now, I know that the HRM will estimate high but why the vast spread from bike to run? Same app on the phone. I can show the graphs if people need.

peeaanuut

bump for some views today. Just looking for a more accurate way to log. Thoughts?

donyellemoniquex3

HRM's don't know crap. Do your research !

hannamarie88

What kind of HRM do you use? I have a Polar FT4 that comes with a band and usually it's pretty close to the number on MFP. That HRM is attached to me and MFP is an estimate based on what you weigh. I typically trust my HRM, but I've heard the accurate number is somewhere in between the two. I also don't eat back all of my exercise calories to prepare for the +/- factor.

Does yours have a band or is it just the watch?

peeaanuut

HRM's don't know crap. Do your research !

thanks for 1, not reading the original post and 2 for that such informative way you responded. All the hype, none of the substance.

hanna:
I use the polar bluetooth HRM that links to my iPhone. Its the band like you would use with the FT4 but just not locked to a watch. I have used the Polar app and am currently using digifit. They are nearly the same as far as calories showed burned so I know its not the software with a wierd algorithem. But what trips me out is its so close on the bike and so far apart on the walking. I figure if its off, it should be way off and then I can factor that in. But with numbers flying all over, its hard to find a factor to work with.

hannamarie88

Also -- MFP cannot tell how much energy you exerted doing the exercise and your HRM can. You don't have to use the MFP numbers, you can input your own. That's what I do, especially for the exercises where it does not even have a choice.

peeaanuut

Also -- MFP cannot tell how much energy you exerted doing the exercise and your HRM can. You don't have to use the MFP numbers, you can input your own. That's what I do, especially for the exercises where it does not even have a choice.

thats my issue. if the HRM was always 20-30% over, then I would cut it down to about 10% over MFP. But its all over the place. lol

I almost never eat back my exercise calories, so its sort of a moot point overall. I just wondered why it was all over the place. Ill find out tonight with my rowing/cross fit class and see what it says compared to MFP and see how far I am off.

Thanks for the thoughts.

hannamarie88

Also -- MFP cannot tell how much energy you exerted doing the exercise and your HRM can. You don't have to use the MFP numbers, you can input your own. That's what I do, especially for the exercises where it does not even have a choice.

thats my issue. if the HRM was always 20-30% over, then I would cut it down to about 10% over MFP. But its all over the place. lol

I almost never eat back my exercise calories, so its sort of a moot point overall. I just wondered why it was all over the place. Ill find out tonight with my rowing/cross fit class and see what it says compared to MFP and see how far I am off.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Agh. I wrote a post and it didn't post. Frustrating.

I think it's a lot to do with the amount of energy you expend while exercising. That's a huge variable and might be throwing the numbers -- especially if you cranked it up to 4 for awhile and tried logging it in MFP as 2.

Like you said though, since you don't eat them back it's a rather moot point, but I understand your desire to know. I guess it's nice to be able to get at least close to knowing how much you are burning off as long as you are cautious of the numbers.

Hope I helped a little! I only got mine July 5th, so I'm still learning with it.

IdRatherBeReading

I am still trying to figure this stuff out too, lol. I have a Polar FT7 and then I use the MapMyRun app on my Android to track distance. I did a 4.06 mile fast walk/light jog in 1hr 16 mins a few days ago and MFP and MMR both said around 280 calories burned, but HRM said 771. That's a HUGE difference. Do I trust the HRM numbers?

kjoy_

This might be a "duh" question, but you did clear the calorie counter after the bike ride, right? so it's not adding both together?

Make sure your HRM is plush against your chest on tight, if it's bouncing around it may not get an accurate read. also, have you doctor test your blood pressure, if it's high your heart rate might be high when exercising. my HRM is generally on target with what website calcs/MFP have told me within 0-50 calorie range

peeaanuut

This might be a "duh" question, but you did clear the calorie counter after the bike ride, right? so it's not adding both together?

Make sure your HRM is plush against your chest on tight, if it's bouncing around it may not get an accurate read. also, have you doctor test your blood pressure, if it's high your heart rate might be high when exercising. my HRM is generally on target with what website calcs/MFP have told me within 0-50 calorie range

the bike was cleared of data, but I only pulled distance and time form it. Heart rate info came from the Polar monitor to the phone. Its pretty tight on my skin, doesnt move around like I thought it would. Blood pressure is fine according to the last check, but I cant tell you what it was. I know it was within range, but on the high side of that range.

of if that first question was about how I log, yes, it only logged the bike info on MFP one time. No doubling up for me. I dont wear my fitbit when I am on the bike either.

elephant_in_the_room

Out of experience, I'm incredulous about the HRM figure. 445 cals for 21 min of walking (2.5 mph) sounds very unlikely, that would be more than 1270 cals per hour. I know no activity that burns that much energy, the highest values per hour are around the 600-700 mark, and walking is not a high-calorie burning activity.

Granted this depends on weight and may be different for me than you, but I think not by as much.

The HRM estimates calories based on your heart rate and other paramters ( age, weight). So maybe your heart rate reading was especially high because it was still elevated after the bicycle, but Stil....

I go with karahjoy, maybe the HRM didn't properly reset between activities.

Just try the walking routine again and compare.

peeaanuut

I thought that too, Im gonna have to do it in reverse order next time and see if the data stays the same or swaps places. I know the walking one was just way too high. It just couldnt be what it said it was. I mean, Im a big dude and would love the extra calories, but not that way. lol

elephant_in_the_room

I hadn't read that when I posted. I understand that you didn't wear the HRM while on the stationary bike.
Okay, still question, are you sure it was reset when you put it onfor the treadmill?

If it was... As I said, the figure is so unlikely that I would suspect the thing is broken.

Test it.
Wear it more often for similar activities, write down results and compare.
Do also wear it on the bike to see what it says then, relative to the bike's own estimate.
Make sure it is always reset when it starts.

Are the results consistent or all over the place?

Btw: i don't know your full weight but I guess i'm much smaller than you at 66 kg. okay.i would never, ever burn even 200 kcals in 20 minutes of walking, only in fairly fast running. Now I think that difference may be due to weight and age.i can believe 200,but not 445.

peeaanuut

oh ok. Lets start this again.

the device is the bluetooth polar to my phone. Each activity is logged in its own log. It is not continuous. My stats are 378 lbs and 5'10" male

So here is the stationary bike - big spike was the push in the final k




and here is the treadmill the 2 larger spikes are moments when I sped up to 3.5 and than 4.0

elephant_in_the_room

Ok, great graphical representation! As I said... Try again, compare the screenshots or write it down, see whether it's consistent.

KAS0917

I agree that something isn't making sense.

I can't imagine that a 21 minute walk at mostly 2.5 mph would ever equal that amount of calories burned. (I mean, I see that is what it is telling you, it just doesn't make mathematical sense to me).

I plugged your weight and # of minutes into the calculator on SparkPeople.com. I know it isn't completely accurate, because it would vary depending on you being a guy, body comp, etc. but it gave a value of 142 calories burned in 21 minutes, at 2.5 mph. Even if that gets bumped up because you increased the speed a bit, it wouldn't increase THAT much. 445 just seems crazy high, but I don't know how to explain why it would be that far off.

elephant_in_the_room

Old thread, has anything new come of it? Peeaanuut, have you done more measurements?

I have to correct myself. Doing rope jumping, my HRM says that I can burn 70 calories in 5 min 15. That would make 1333 calories per hour, I didn't think there was an activity that could burn that much.

Granted this: average heart rate during those 5 minutes was 178 -- close to absolute max. That may have caused the high reading. And on the other hand, precisely because I do it at close to max heartrate, i.e. close to maximum effort, I can't imagine doing it for an hour.

But your heartrate wasn't that high... I'd really be curious what the thing does in repeated experiments.

peeaanuut

ok, I ran another test on a different exercise. I wore the HRM during my rowing/crosstraining class. It lasts about an hour. HRM said 1090 calories and MFP says 1082. So its darn near close again.

peeaanuut

i have yet to do the same 2 exercises back to back like I originally did, but tonight should be a good time to test that.

sirenical

I suggest looking at the report of the workouts. What was your actual HR? Was it cranking for one and slow on the other? If based on your weight and your current endurance level, you worked harder to walk that distance than someone who has a greater endurance level than you even if they are the same weight, you are going to burn more calories.
See what your HR was doing. That could give you a lot of insight.

sirenical

So I just viewed your screenshots.

While you don't want to believe the numbers for the walk... According to your HRM it seems accurate looking at them side by side.

Side by side

Bike Walk
Time - 18:14 21:30
Cal - 331 445
Avg bpm 123 140
Max bpm 159 170

Side by side, your walking time was longer, your average beats per minute was higher, your max beats per minute was higher, therefore your calories burned was higher.

While I am not suggesting it is 100% accurate, the data shows that it is close basing it on that information alone. It doesn't matter your speed if you are working harder to walk the same amount of time as you rode the bike.

peeaanuut

i wasnt too worried about the variance between walking and biking. its that the bike was near spot on with the MFP bike numbers but the walking was so far off. Butlooking at last nights numbers, the HRM seems to be pretty spot on with the MFP numbers now.

I am gonna do the walk and bike again tonight and see if the results are the same or as someone suggested above, the HRM wasnt fitting as good on the walk. Ill give it an extra tug to pull it tighter and see how it goes.

ruthrowlett1

I'm so glad I'm not the only one trying to figure all these things out!!

rbear713

Out of experience, I'm incredulous about the HRM figure. 445 cals for 21 min of walking (2.5 mph) sounds very unlikely, that would be more than 1270 cals per hour. I know no activity that burns that much energy, the highest values per hour are around the 600-700 mark, and walking is not a high-calorie burning activity.

Granted this depends on weight and may be different for me than you, but I think not by as much.

The HRM estimates calories based on your heart rate and other paramters ( age, weight). So maybe your heart rate reading was especially high because it was still elevated after the bicycle, but Stil....

I go with karahjoy, maybe the HRM didn't properly reset between activities.

Ok so Im with these guys. I use my ft7 between 3 and 4 hours a day - my HRM's is the only number I trust generally - everything else is just an estimate in my eyes. For me, MFP cals are always high, and to use the ones you get from the machines you use? Those are waaaaay outta line (usually)

There could be some merit to your walk being so high due to riding the bike first (an elevated HR tends to stay elevated). Or possibly there is some error in calculation on the walk (400 plus cals for that walk IS really high).

Best advice from me is make sure your HRM is working properly, use it regularly, and TRUST it.

HRM is the most accurate way of counting cals that I know of, hands down.

DebbieLyn63

I had the opposite results for me. For Cycling, MFP gave me twice the number of cals burned than my HRM said, however, walking was closer, yet still higher.
What I have learned over the past year, is that your HR is only an indication of how much energy you are expending. If you are considerable overweight or out of shape cardio-wise, your HR may be elevated considerably over the actual energy you are expending. There are fancy machines that measure your VO max, and other complicated things that I don't fully understand, that give you a more accurate calorie burn as you exercise.

Also, if you have a higher than average BF%, your body doesn't burn as many calories as someone at the same weight, yet more muscle mass and lower BF%.

MFP database and HRM are much more accurate for those who are closer to a healthy weight and Body Fat %.

I also agree that it is highly unlikely that you burn anywhere near 1300 cals per hour. Good thing you aren't eating them all back.

Many people who see elevated numbers, simply enter half the amount that MFP gives them, just to be on the safe side.

tvanhooser

MFP can only guesstimate on an average person....it may know your weight, height and age but not sure if it actually takes those into consideration on the calculator because whoever entered it in the database, unless its from your personal exercises, I would imagine is just entering an average burn for a "typical" person. I don't know what "typical" looks like for the men's side but for women, most calculators I've seen are normed on a 25 year old, 5'7"ish, 150 lb. woman and I am none of the above or even close so I hardly trust their calculations as accurate for me. In addition, they do not take into account your fitness level or exertion making the calculations even more suspect. I do not own an HRM so am not really all that familiar with how it works, but in my opinion, any tool that takes more of your personal data into account is going to give a more accurate estimate of your calorie burn than a generic calculation. Nothing is going to be 100% perfect so you just have to pick one tool to trust and go with whatever it says rather than obsessing over whether it is spot on....because none of them ever will be. Since I don't have an HRM, I take my pulse several times during a workout, take an average and plug it into the heart-rate based calorie burn calculator at shapesense.com which takes into consideration my actual age, weight, VO2max and average heart rate, along with exercise duration. In my opinion, the guesstimate is good enough because it just gives me a rough idea of how much I can eat and still lose and I usually don't come anywhere close to going over because in spite of the allowances they give me for exercise, I know from personal experience and experimentation that even with workouts, I can't go over about 1400 without starting to gain again. Just the way my body works no matter what anyone says. So that is my two cents worth on explaining the discrepancies....

peeaanuut

i have been trying to not eat back more than 50% of the calories I log burned just in case it is getting high and it seems to be working for me. Im gonna keep testing it though and see how accurate/inaccurate it becomes.

lmarshel

I use the polar bluetooth HRM that links to my iPhone. Its the band like you would use with the FT4 but just not locked to a watch. I have used the Polar app and am currently using digifit. They are nearly the same as far as calories showed burned so I know its not the software with a wierd algorithem. But what trips me out is its so close on the bike and so far apart on the walking. I figure if its off, it should be way off and then I can factor that in. But with numbers flying all over, its hard to find a factor to work with.

Be aware that not all apps using the Polar Bluetooth HRM actually calculate using the heart rate. I also have a Polar Bluetooth, and the first app I tried did not calculate using HRM. I could do 30 minutes running or sitting on the couch, and it would show exactly the same thing. I was just plugging the time in and spitting out a number. Might want to check to be sure your app works correctly with the Bluetooth HRM. I currently use SportsTracker Pro.

spikesmom

I find that HRM's are more accurate for me than MFP, but I only use it as a guideline. My hubby is a huge tech geek and buys me all these things that I end up usually not using, but I do like the HRM because I use it to gauge my exertion for the same exercise, i.e. spinning or running. The model I have is the Polar RS300X and allows for my OWN(trademark) personalized testing that gives me a VO2Max.

Your numbers do sound high, but not ridiculous considering your height and weight. I'm 5'3", 118 pounds, and it takes me almost an hour of hard workout to hit those numbers of 400-600

A lot of people don't like HRM's because if your heart rate is running high for other reasons than exercise, it will give you an inaccurate reading. But if you, like I, don't eat back your calories, don't sweat it. Just use it as a guideline. Over time, it will make more sense to you.

peeaanuut

I use the polar bluetooth HRM that links to my iPhone. Its the band like you would use with the FT4 but just not locked to a watch. I have used the Polar app and am currently using digifit. They are nearly the same as far as calories showed burned so I know its not the software with a wierd algorithem. But what trips me out is its so close on the bike and so far apart on the walking. I figure if its off, it should be way off and then I can factor that in. But with numbers flying all over, its hard to find a factor to work with.

Be aware that not all apps using the Polar Bluetooth HRM actually calculate using the heart rate. I also have a Polar Bluetooth, and the first app I tried did not calculate using HRM. I could do 30 minutes running or sitting on the couch, and it would show exactly the same thing. I was just plugging the time in and spitting out a number. Might want to check to be sure your app works correctly with the Bluetooth HRM. I currently use SportsTracker Pro.

That was the first thing I looked at. Digifit does use the HRM numbers to calculate instead of an estimate. And in comparison the polar app comes up with nearly the exact same number as digifit does. But apps like mapmyfitness, even when wearing the monitor are very inflated compared to MFP and digifit.