Calorie burn--heart rate monitor vs machine vs website?

Jamie_V

I have found that I get a significantly different number for "calories burned" between my heart rate monitor (constant monitor w/chest strap), whatever cardio machine I'm on (treadmill, elliptical, etc), and many websites, including this one. For example, after 50 minutes on the elliptical today, my HRM said 390 calories, the machine said 575, and the MFP website calculated over 900! For today's workout, I basically split the difference and put in 550, as I feel like I would be much worse off if I overestimate my burn. Any advice out there as to which method is most accurate?

daniface

why wouldnt you go with what your HRM says? afterall its strapped to your body.

kristinmomof3

Your heart rate monitor would be the most accurate.

blakeym

Personally, I would only accept what your HRM tells you as long as you have customized it with your height, weight, age. It's probably going to be the most accurate.

superstarcassie

Use your HRM reading! It should have your body weight/height/gender plugged in. I think MFP and the machines overestimate calories burned.

jrich1

I use exclusively the HRM readings, the machine and webpages are just general estimates

AlannaPie

I find that also. While we assume it does, I really don't think mfp takes all of the factors into consideration and I know the machine doesn't. I just got back from the gym and the bike said I burnt 300 calories while my HRM says I burnt 650 (I round down seriously though).

mrsyatesy

I'm with them!! HRM is specific to you, it shows what effort you are actually expending to cover that distance - the others assume an effort which may not be an accurate representation of your body, fitness and strength.
:noway:

LittlePam

I would go with the heart rate monitor. MFP can say I burned x amount of calories but really it depends on how much effort I put into the individual exercise. I can do the same exercise 2 different times and put less effort into one. What monitor do you have? I'm thinking of getting one and would like advice on it.

knittygirl52

ALWAYS go with the heart-rate monitor. Everything else is an estimate.

mrsyatesy

I have a garmin FR60 which I have a lot of love for!!! :blushing:

MouthyMatthewCHANGED

If I were you I would definitely take the details from your HRM as they're more personal to you as opposed to those within MFP which rely on a lot of generic and broad-reaching information.

vineas

I'll also go with the consensus here - always go with the HRM. If I do something long that I didn't have my HRM for (like mowing lawn, or a walk with the family), I only take about 70% of what MFP says the calorie burn was, since that is what the typical number is for me when I have to enter the HRM numbers.

Kath15

I agree with everyone else. I always go with the number that my HRM gives me. There is always a margin of error with everything, but I would trust the device that stores my specific measurements, is strapped to my chest, and monitors my constant heart rate over the others.

beautyqueen1979

HRM every time. The machines in my gym appear to seriously underestimate the cals, and MFP tends to overestimate. HRM is strapped to my chest so to me it is by far the most accurate.

DJH510

Personally I find it strange how there is this very popular misconception in America that HRM's can 'measure' your calorie usage more accurately than anything else, and that the results are guaranteed to be accurate. Over here in the UK there is no such myth; people rarely use heart rate monitors and when they do, it isn't to measure calorie burn. I chalk it up to excessive and genius marketing by HRM manufacturers in the US, that hasn't caught on elsewhere.
In any case, A heart rate monitor is only capable of doing one thing with any credibility: MEASURE HEART RATE! People say "don't trust the machines, they are just an estimate", "the machines just predict calorie burn based upon a formula" and "the machines don't know my heart rate so they cannot be accurate".
Yet HRM's also just make a prediction based upon a likely rough correlation between someones heart rate and their current work rate, but this formula is based upon many key assumptions that do not apply to many people. They ALSO simply use a rough formula to make a prediction.
And the fact that HRM's monitor heart rate is not in itself an edge is predicting calorie burn: calories burned through exercise is nothing over and above the physical "work" performed by someone. Someone physically fit will be able to perform huge amounts of work (and therefore burn huge amounts of calories) with little perceived effort and a low heart rate, whereas someone less fit will have a very high heart rate performing even a small amount of work. The fact that a HRM has no idea how much work has been performed, whereas a treadmill that knows your weight has a very accurate idea, clearly counts against the HRM's accuracy. Two people of the same weight running at the same speed on a treadmill will burn pretty much exactly the same amount of calories, regardless of what their HRM's may say.
Yet despite all this the HRM's calorie reading is still taken as gospel by many. In reality, a HRM simply makes a prediction, and nothing more than that. This prediction, as I have explained, is no more likely to be true than other predictions, from exercise machines, fitness websites or whatever.
To sum up I would say you can't know, without going to a lab and measuring it scientifically, which is the most accurate reading for any given activity, so don't worry about it too much. Exercise, eat well and don't worry about the little numbers - there are too many fitness myths out there distracting us from something that is ultimately rather intuitive: the basic rules of weight loss!

kmulhollen

Def agree with all above - HRM is the way to go. I had the exact same issue where the elliptical was telling me I burned a bazillion calories.

To reply to above comment - the more accurate best guess of calories burned (of the 3) would be the HRM which at least you are setting it up with specific parameters like age, weight... so that it's the best guess comparing all three options (1) machine not individualized (2) database semi-individualized (3) HRM individualized variables.

Sharont213

Since I purchased a HRM (Polar F6) and started using it, I have been able to lose weight. Prior to that, everything IMHO was a guesstimate. I would use the HRM.

PaulC9554

Dragging up an old thread.
I've been reading alot about eating exercise calories - seems to be a very common question. I've been calorie counting and exercising more since Christmas when I became a member of this site.
When I workout on the machines I note the calories (as well as dist, pace etc). To be honest, I thought the amount of calories the machine said I'd expended was kinda generous. There was also a difference between the machine calculation and the calculations here on MFP. I recently started using a HRM and again a different set of numbers.
Here's the results from todays activities: two machines, Elliptical trainer and Treadclimber, 30 mins on each
Elliptical 508 cals, MFP 644 cals, HRM 283 cals
Treadclimber 784 cals, MFP 414 cals, HRM 260 Cals
A range there from 543 to 1292. If I were to follow the guidelines about eating exercise cals potentially I could have been eating way over my daily allowance.
So which to believe? I'm going with the HRM. At least I've a number to input here for exercise and I'll be able to handle these extra cals. Prevoiusly, at the end of some days I'd still have several 100 cals left to eat.