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

TuDominicano

go with your HRM.

peeaanuut

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.

mostly I want to learn to use the HRM as a motivator. Do I need to kick it up a notch or back out? Stuff like that.. calories will end up being a by product.

TuDominicano

I kinda like strava or endomondo better than digfit. i used it once, didn't trust it.

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

Kimsied

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

Hi I use a polar H7 and Digifit too. For me, Digifit gives a much lower calorie burn estimate than MFP, Endomondo and a lot of other sources I looked at. I do trust the estimate though because it seems to match my actual exertion and real world results. I have done quite a bit of research and have tried my best to make sure all my settings were correct or close to correct. The settings include: height, weight, age, gender, body fat percent (though I don't think Digifit uses it as a factor), resting heart rate, maximum heart rate, and vo2max. I don't know my true max heart rate and vo2max but have done tests that estimate it and I opted to purchase the digifit assessments. I am pretty happy with the assessments, I did the more advanced assessments to estimate max heart rate and custom zones. My heart rate tends to be low compared to the standard numbers for my stats and doing this made my zones match my actual exertion.

I did ask what factors in and was told the total includes BMR and the activity type, your stats, heart rat during workout compared to max heart rate, and vo2max or fitness level rating are factors. Your numbers sound high, 400-and something for a mile sounds kind of high, but you have a much higher BMR than I do and will therefore burn a lot more calories. From the images you posted it looks like both were moderate aerobic workouts, so my guess is your BMR was the factor. I don't know whether MFP's estimates include BMR. I would suggest checking what it has for your VO2max and fitness level to make sure it isn't assuming a very high fitness level (unless you are very fit). And make sure your profile is correct.

Here is a blog entry from the Digifit site that describes their calorie burn estimates: http://blog.digifit.com/2013/03/counting-calories-digifit/

Since you don't eat most of your exercise calories it is probably fine. And you will likely see the calorie burn decrease with your weight (since your estimated BMR will then decrease)

peeaanuut

i figure that if I dont eat back more than 50% of my workout calories I should be ahead of the game. My only other issue is no HRM in the pool. I swim my tush off in that pool but no real idea of how my HR is working. I tried to do an average based upon a reading every 4 laps but it was all over the place. MFP says 600ish for 30 minutes of light to moderate lap swimming. I feel im working quite harder than that based upon my reading but Ill stick with the light to moderate.


I still want to try the bike them walk combo. I was going to tonight but all the machines were taken so on the pool I went. More data can only help here right?

elephant_in_the_room

More data can only help here right?

Yep. I have to stand ashamed and publicly announce that I can't calculate. A fairly high-intensity exercise that I'm trying to get better at these days is rope jumping. The other day 5:15 minutes at average HR 178 = 70 calories according to the HRM; that's not 1333 per hour as I wrote, that's more like 800. Today I broke the 10 min mark at average HR 175, and it said 133 cals, almost exactly double for almost exactly the double time, and still almost 800 per hour.

So I'm embarassed but my world view is back to normal -- around 700-800-ish is the upper limit for calorie consumption per hour for any half way sustainable activity. Modify this of course by age, weight, fitness level, and maybe there are some really really strenuous activities out there and some really. Really fit people who can do them for a decent length of time... But for everyday calorie calculations for normal people, 600-800 as a max is a good rule of thumb.

Maybe your Polar makes the same mistake I made? I calculated 100 minutes in an hour when it has only 60.

LadyEm06

I have the same issue. My HRM is anywhere from 50 to 300 calories more than MFP, depending on what I do. I will say that my heart is CRANKING during some of my crossfit exercises and long runs (like ~190). Given everything I've read, I default to the HRM over MFP. However, I have lost some weight and am generally more fit than the last time I calibrated my heart rate monitor, so I plan to recalibrate this weekend.

But, so long as it's calibrated to your weight, age, all those little drills they have you do prior to test your heart rate range, I say go with the HRM. I, too, only eat back 50% or fewer of my exercise calories just in case. So far, results have been just fine.

dchief30

I have a Garmin fr60 had it for about 6 years been on M.F.P. for about about that long never trust mfp always trust the heart rate monitor they knows best and make sure all your profile stuff is right on heart rate monitor too are weight resting heart rate make sure all that is right (:

nicsalt

For the HRMs don't know crap comment...

Heart rate monitors are not "crap". They are way more accurate than MFP (which has no idea about the intensity of your workout). MFP uses and average number and we are all very different. Those who are less fit will have a higher calorie burn than a more fit partner doing the exact same workout due to the increased effort needed to do the same activity and added strain on their cardiovascular system and so on.
Check out consumer reports, they have tested several styles and models and posted their findings.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/heart-rate-monitors.htm

I use a HRM every time I workout and enter my numbers manually into MFP.
In the end if you don't have one, you're still burning calories and exercising and while you may not know the exact number, you know you are moving in the right direction.

Cheers!

ps, I use a Polar FT4 with chest strap and I never eat back my calories burned.

MassiveDelta

Very nice interface I may get one of these to play with .