HRMs and MFP Calculations, is MFP close enough?

abbynormal52

I was dancin my "nevermind" off and so happy my Polar appeared to be working. I checked it after 20 minutes and was keeping perfect time, but said no calories burned.

Anyway, I'm done with trying to fix it, but I wanted to ask any of you if you have ever "tested" out the calories burned in something like dancing, running, walking, and found the calculations on MFP to be close enough?

I can buy another HRM, but if I don't need to, I don't want to. Someday for other activities like in the Summer, I might want something.

jjpptt2

Yes, MFP's numbers are almost always within about 5% of any other method of estimating. I assume that's because I'm pretty close to whatever they assume/average when making the algorithms for estimating calories burned.

YMMV.

abbynormal52

I just can't test it now that the Polar is broke. I have to go with MFP, or some other online calc. but I figure MFP is fine;)

I'm trying to activate my brain to figure this out, take 100 calories and minus 5% and see, or add 5% right?? LOL!! Oh geez, been too long away from math class;) just 5 calorie diff:) Got it, ty JJ

endermako

I use a Polar A370 and my calories based off of that are more accurate then the estimates in MFP.

abbynormal52

How close are they, do you know if they are the 5% mentioned in the other reply to me? Ty for the reply, I wish mine worked because it would be nice to know where I'm at during my workouts;)

jjpptt2

There's no way to know how close they will be for you. You're best bet is to pick one source/method for estimating calorie burns and use that consistently. Then, once you have a few weeks' worth of data, you can compare your actual results with your expected results, then tweak your estimating appropriately.

cmriverside

Do you know how to use your Polar? If the battery in the strap is okay (is it fairly new?) then go to the Polar website for the instructions on how to use it. Mine still works after ten years of having it.

With that said, if you deduct your RMR from the numbers the Polar gives, it was really close to MFP's numbers.

Here's what I do after futzing with the Polar, a step tracker, and MFP, and getting tired of the nuances:

I log 300 calories per hour of moderate exercise no matter what that exercise is. It works fine. I lost most of my weight doing that, and I used to do quite a bit of zumba - kinda dancey.

I looked at a few website calculators, used my Polar and finally got tired of messing around with it all and just started doing that. I mean, unless you are doing steady state cardio for a long time, the HRMs are pretty usueless too. And you really need to input your VO2 max for it to be close...I know, and then!! You'll likely make 200 plus calorie per day errors in food logging anyway, even if you make all your own food.

Just keep records as accurately as you can. Turns out that's good enough if you're consistent.

Here's a good blog about HRMs:

https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

kpsyche

If I walk on flat ground the MFP estimates are close (very close). If I walk up and down hills and on rough ground -- my usual walk -- then the numbers from my watch and those from MFP are very different.

AnnPT77

I've found my Polar close to MFP's estimate for some activities in the MFP database, and fairly far off for others. It's been ~3 years since I was comparing my routine activities, so I don't recall which were which.

I'm suspicious of the MFP entries that don't have any kind of metric: I think things like "gardening, general" are iffy because there's a big difference between casually weeding the carrots, and double-digging a new veggie bed. For the aerobic dance type stuff, I could be just going through the motions or really bringing it, and I don't know what vigor assumption is built into the MFP entry. Walking or cycling X mph may be a little closer, but what kind of cycling matters (road vs. trail, type of bike, etc.).

Worse yet, the HRM isn't accurate for all activities, either: It's best for steady state cardio activity, not as good for intervals, and really not as good for anything that isn't cardio (can be really far off for strength training, for example).

If you have a HRM that knows your actual VO2 max, or your actual max and resting heart rate (and you know your actual max, which most people don't), it will be likely to give you more accurate calorie estimates for cardio than one that estimates your max heart rate based on age (the age-based formulas are inaccurate for quite a few people).

It's important to remember that a HRM doesn't measure calorie burn. They measure heart rate, and use algorithms to estimate calorie burn. They'll be confused by anything that raises your heart rate but doesn't involve burning more calories. Some examples of things that raise heart rate without increasing calorie burn are hot weather, dehydration (doesn't have to be life threatening ), physical strain (as in weight lifting), and fear/alarm, among others.

If there are activities you do routinely, pick an estimating method, and stick with it. After 4-6 weeks, you'll have enough weight-loss data to adjust your intake if necessary to get a sensible loss rate.

Estimating exercise calories is worth doing, but it's important to think about the limitations.

AnvilHead

All my exercise is logged automatically by my Garmin watch, so I don't usually even bother to check them against the MFP database. Just for the heck of it, I compared them for an easy run a couple days ago. 26 minutes at an 11:47 pace, 2.21 miles - I used MFP's "Running (jogging), 5 mph (12 minute mile)" entry. Garmin gave me 260 calories, MFP's database gave me 317 calories. Interestingly, I also ran my stats and the workout numbers through the Runnersworld online calculator and MapMyRun's online calculator. With the same stats/numbers as above, Runnersworld gave me 339 calories and MapMyRun said 402 calories.

Garmin has all my relevant physical stats (height, weight (by daily weigh-in), age, resting heart rate, etc.), calculates a running VO2max estimate and "training status" based upon frequency/intensity, and I've been using it to track all my workouts and daily activity for almost 8 months. It was also worn during the workout and tracks my pace, heart rate, cadence, elevation change, distance via GPS, etc. - so while I know nothing is perfect, I tend to trust it more than any online calculator, especially for steady-state cardio.

Also, even though HR-based calorie expenditure is known to be inaccurate for strength training, it pretty consistently gives me around 250-300 calories for a one-hour weight training session - a bit less than half the expenditure for running, which seems to at least be somewhere in the ballpark.

abbynormal52

jjpptt2 wrote: »

There's no way to know how close they will be for you. You're best bet is to pick one source/method for estimating calorie burns and use that consistently. Then, once you have a few weeks' worth of data, you can compare your actual results with your expected results, then tweak your estimating appropriately.

Ok, yes, I'm just using the MFP exercise calculations for now:) ty much, Denise

abbynormal52

cmriverside wrote: »

Do you know how to use your Polar? If the battery in the strap is okay (is it fairly new?) then go to the Polar website for the instructions on how to use it. Mine still works after ten years of having it.

With that said, if you deduct your RMR from the numbers the Polar gives, it was really close to MFP's numbers.

Here's what I do after futzing with the Polar, a step tracker, and MFP, and getting tired of the nuances:

I log 300 calories per hour of moderate exercise no matter what that exercise is. It works fine. I lost most of my weight doing that, and I used to do quite a bit of zumba - kinda dancey.

I looked at a few website calculators, used my Polar and finally got tired of messing around with it all and just started doing that. I mean, unless you are doing steady state cardio for a long time, the HRMs are pretty usueless too. And you really need to input your VO2 max for it to be close...I know, and then!! You'll likely make 200 plus calorie per day errors in food logging anyway, even if you make all your own food.

Just keep records as accurately as you can. Turns out that's good enough if you're consistent.

Here's a good blog about HRMs:

https://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

Thank you and sorry I didn't have my "notifications" figured out until today. So I just found I had replies here.

Ok, yes I know how to use the Polar, I used it from 2012, but I let a friend use it, and they messed with the back of the "connector". Now it works like a watch, allows me to put in all the settings, and works fine as a stop-watch. But not calories show up on it at all.

So I'm with you on just using what MFP has got going on for calculations. I can walk 4 miles an hour, and I usually walk just 30 minutes fast. My calculations on the mapmywalk app are like 196 if I am remembering right. And that is close to what MFP gave me as well. I don't know what an HRM would give me but I'm not going to stress over it. I'm doing fine using MFP calcs for 14 days, lost 2 solid lbs, and 1 inch so far.

Ty much for your reply, Denise:) PS I should have mentioned clearly, that the battery "door" will not come off of the "connector". I have a new battery for it, suspect that's the issue, but my friend that borrowed it tore up the slot you use to turn the little "battery cover":( Maybe if I could get my arms strong enough, lol, I could open the dang thing;)

abbynormal52

AnvilHead wrote: »

All my exercise is logged automatically by my Garmin watch, so I don't usually even bother to check them against the MFP database. Just for the heck of it, I compared them for an easy run a couple days ago. 26 minutes at an 11:47 pace, 2.21 miles - I used MFP's "Running (jogging), 5 mph (12 minute mile)" entry. Garmin gave me 260 calories, MFP's database gave me 317 calories. Interestingly, I also ran my stats and the workout numbers through the Runnersworld online calculator and MapMyRun's online calculator. With the same stats/numbers as above, Runnersworld gave me 339 calories and MapMyRun said 402 calories.

Garmin has all my relevant physical stats (height, weight (by daily weigh-in), age, resting heart rate, etc.), calculates a running VO2max estimate and "training status" based upon frequency/intensity, and I've been using it to track all my workouts and daily activity for almost 8 months. It was also worn during the workout and tracks my pace, heart rate, cadence, elevation change, distance via GPS, etc. - so while I know nothing is perfect, I tend to trust it more than any online calculator, especially for steady-state cardio.

Also, even though HR-based calorie expenditure is known to be inaccurate for strength training, it pretty consistently gives me around 250-300 calories for a one-hour weight training session - a bit less than half the expenditure for running, which seems to at least be somewhere in the ballpark.

That makes me want to have a Garmin, which I haven't a clue but I can google it:) It isn't so much I want to perfect, as I love gadgets, and all they can do. Thank you for all the info, I appreciate it, Denise

I never liked wearing the Polar "strap" that holds the connector right over my heart. I think it was an excellent HRM but I couldn't find anything online to help me fix it.

abbynormal52

I wanted to mention that today I danced here at home, and worked hard at it. Did a lot of squats, lunge-type, worked as hard as I could for 30 minutes. I never work that hard walking, but walking 30 minutes give me almost 200 calories burned. So I just put what MFP gave me which was about 150. I feel I probably burned more than that, kind of encouraging me to wear an HRM. I don't want to try and be exact, because before I defeated my purpose trying to be perfect.

So now that I am doing more, and hopefully more in the future, I think I'll look at the Garmin, and/or try to get some help fixing the Polar (find out if it's just the battery) It has a brand new battery in the watch part.

abbynormal52

Holy moly! I checked out the Garmin and gotta pass on that price. I don't do enough activities to warrant spending that much, but it is nice. I think I'll see if I can get someone to remove the cover on my Polar connector, if I can't find help on the Polar site;)

Edit: Hallaleuia!! I used a little more ingenuity (a hammer ) to get the cover off the battery on the Polar "strap's" connector. Replaced the battery, and voila! Maybe my body-weight exercises are working after all PS Kidding about the hammer;)