HRM v MFP calorie burn!

AnnaPixie

Hi everyone

I bought a HRM - Polar F7 - and I used it for the first time today.

I used it for the exact same step aerobics dvd that I've been doing for the last 2 months.

MFP estimated my burn at 522 cals

My HRM says I burn 332 cals!

I was just wondering if anyone else who has an HRM has compared their stats and if they were that much lower?

I'm a bit disappointed :noway: as I thought I was burning more cals. But I'm happy :bigsmile: as I have never been one to eat all my exercise cals. I only eat about 200. And thank goodness I didn't, as I would have been at almost maintenance!

I know everyone is different, and perhaps my HRM is off, but its a lesson learned that I wanted to share : -

DON'T eat all your exercise cals if MFP are estimating!!! :flowerforyou:

ChubbieTubbie

When I first got my HRM, I was riding my bike often and MFP estimated I would burn 175 cals in 15 minutes. My HRM said I was burning 235 in 15 minutes. Now that I've been exercising regularly, my HRM and MFP are nearly exact in estimates (within 5 cals!). I can imagine that the more I exercise, soon MFP will be overestimating, but for the moment I know I can trust MFP for a general estimate and know it's close.

4lafz

We all go through this once we get the HRM. You will find MFP numbers are exaggerated. I believe they were averaged while your HRM is based on your stats. Even now I leave a couple hundred of my exercise - just for error rate. Good luck - now you will test everything using your HRM (like I did). The Walking numbers are pretty close to what I burn on my HRM. There will be some that are closer.

missyhse

this is the case for a lot of people, but please don't advise everybody that their calorie burn is less or they shouldn't eat all of their exercise calories

mfp is often significantly below my HRM...

ginnyroxx

i've used mine twice so far. mfp calculated my 30DS as circuit training to be about 285 and my HRM said 270. Could have been I half assed the plank twisty things at the end :laugh:

last night I did my zumba class and usually log that under high impact aerobics and it inputs 599. According to my HRM I burned 570. A little bit more off, but this particular instructor, i feel, doesn't do as high intensity as the other I normally go to.

soo....i think it's pretty accurate, for me.

SweetPandora

I just recently got a Polar HRM and I love it.

I do find that my calories burned are a little lower than what MFP calculates. However, I know that my HRM is programmed for my height, weight etc. so they are accurate.

Karen

jillybeanruns

It depends. When I race or do a speed/HIIT workout, MFP numbers are below my HRM. My HRM is always higher than MFP for strength training but for anything else, MFP is higher. Just go with what your HRM says and you'll be fine.

Dark_Latin_Guy

Just throwing this out there. Did you program the Polar using your age, height, weight?

Do not be discouraged, just keep pressing play and all good things will happen.

AnnaPixie

this is the case for a lot of people, but please don't advise everybody that their calorie burn is less or they shouldn't eat all of their exercise calories

mfp is often significantly below my HRM...

Please dont advise me what to say!!!!!!!!! I DID say that "everyone is different and my HRM might be off!!!"

Jeez, there's always one!! :laugh:

TrainerRobin

Calorie calculation during exercise is a complex issue, and can be confusing since we run into so many variations.

To make it even more frustrating, heart rate monitors (HRMs) also vary in their effectiveness. Most of them are based on a certain type of calculation that is pretty close, and estimated to be within about 20% of the actual calories burned (yes, in either direction ...unfortunately). There are some newer ones (which of course are much more expensive) that have a much more precise calorie burned calculation based on your actual heart rate during exercise.

The Garmin Forerunner 310XT at almost $400 is the most precise on the market. Compare that to the Garmin 305 ($199) which also has a heart monitor or compare to the many other heart rate monitors on the market. The difference is that 99% of the monitors/watches use the industry standard formula (which doesn't consider your heart rate, but rather the duration of your workout and your age/weight/etc).

The 310XT is much more precise because it uses a formula that actually takes into consideration your heart rate over the duration of your cardio workout and kicks out a calorie burn that is the most precise on the market. That's why so many people are paying an extra $200 for the big (and kind of funky looking) 310XT.

Hopefully, within a year or two, the new watches will also have the premier function of the 310XT at a much lower price. Until then, you're best off to use the formula kicked out by the heart rate monitor watch as long as you are udpating your weight as you lose, to ensure that it's calculating calories based on your correct weight.

Just remember that with these (non 310XT) monitors, they're typically off by as much as 20% so if you're eating some of your calories, be safe and consider that you may have burned 20% less than your watch says you did. That's the same rule as for restaurant nutritional information (take what they tell you and add 20% just to be safe!).

Sure makes all of this calorie math harder than it needs to be, huh?

Hope that helps more than it confuses you!!

-- Robin

TrainerRobin

Also remember that most heart rate monitors are effective for cardio exercise only (not lifting or anaerobic exercise). Depending on your HRM for calories burned during resistance training is not a good idea since it's not at all accurate for non-aerobic exercise. The HRMs usually tell people this in their manuals, but it's usually far in the back in tiny print or hidden in the footnotes with a little asterisk.

mymelody_78

I have the Polar F4 and I have noticed that MFP over estimates the calories burned. I am glad that I have the HRM so that I can get a more accurate read since I was eating all of my calories.

Nich0le

I posted about this a few weeks ago and the bright side is that using tools that are available will only help you be the best you can be. I even looked up 8 different calorie sites and found that NONE of them gave the same information, MFP was always in the top three for highest calories burned. There was a MFPer on here tamtastic and she lost 130lbs and she said she only ate about 1/2 of her exercise calories on workout days and she stayed strict to 1200-1400 calories on non workout days.

AnnaPixie

Just throwing this out there. Did you program the Polar using your age, height, weight?

Do not be discouraged, just keep pressing play and all good things will happen.

Yeah, I programmed all the stats hun.

I'm ok, not really discouraged, more intrigued. Perhaps its just that I'm short !? This always seems to take me out the 'average' zone and make my comparisons a bit warped.

But interesting that some people have experienced a lower reading and some accuarate, and some higher.

I'm always happy to speak in the forum and get other experieces, that's the main thing :bigsmile:

missyhse

this is the case for a lot of people, but please don't advise everybody that their calorie burn is less or they shouldn't eat all of their exercise calories

mfp is often significantly below my HRM...

Please dont advise me what to say!!!!!!!!! I DID say that "everyone is different and my HRM might be off!!!"

Jeez, there's always one!! :laugh:

I wasn't trying to be rude or judgemental. Having read a lot of people's posts it seems like some people take every thing to heart and a friend of mine (who listened to how not to eat work out calories on another site) almost died as a result.

Time for me to stop posting on this board I guess

Good luck

TrainerRobin

Here's a fresh comparison:

3 mile run. 5 mph pace.
MFP: 401 calories
Garmin 310XT: 352 calories

For me, on this run, MFP overestimated my calorie burn by about 14%.

nettip

hi anna.

i dont use a HRM but when i logg my gym time MFP alway tells me diffrent cals to the equipment at the gym. For example yesterday i did 30 mins on the cross trainer which said was 343 and MFP said it was 314 so i always go with the gym equipment as that is monitoring what im doing on that day. another day when im not so energetic and a little slower it may of been 314!
so id go with ur HRM.

AnnaPixie

this is the case for a lot of people, but please don't advise everybody that their calorie burn is less or they shouldn't eat all of their exercise calories

mfp is often significantly below my HRM...

Please dont advise me what to say!!!!!!!!! I DID say that "everyone is different and my HRM might be off!!!"

Jeez, there's always one!! :laugh:

I wasn't trying to be rude or judgemental. Having read a lot of people's posts it seems like some people take every thing to heart and a friend of mine (who listened to how not to eat work out calories on another site) almost died as a result.

Time for me to stop posting on this board I guess

Good luck

Thanks hun. I'm sorry about your friend. I'm sorry things got that bad that she made herself ill. I guess some people are more desperate to lose this darn weight than others. All we can really do is share our own experiences and hope other people realise we are all different and what works for one, doesnt work for another.

All I was trying to do was make people aware that MFP estimates, for me, are wrong. I would hate people to be thinking they are doing great by eating ALL their exercise cals back when what they are actually doing is jeapordising their loss!! All that hard work for nothing? I guess what I should have said is BE AWARE that ANY calculation isn't 100%. If you're losing weight, great! It's accurate! If not losing, then look at the estimated calorie burn?

Thankfully, as we both can see by the responses in here, every has different experiences so at least we get a broader view by everyone's interaction. That's the main thing :bigsmile:

edorice

Many people have found that the estimates on MFP are too high. Glad you got a hrm now.

AnnaPixie

Calorie calculation during exercise is a complex issue, and can be confusing since we run into so many variations.

To make it even more frustrating, heart rate monitors (HRMs) also vary in their effectiveness. Most of them are based on a certain type of calculation that is pretty close, and estimated to be within about 20% of the actual calories burned (yes, in either direction ...unfortunately). There are some newer ones (which of course are much more expensive) that have a much more precise calorie burned calculation based on your actual heart rate during exercise.

The Garmin Forerunner 310XT at almost $400 is the most precise on the market. Compare that to the Garmin 305 ($199) which also has a heart monitor or compare to the many other heart rate monitors on the market. The difference is that 99% of the monitors/watches use the industry standard formula (which doesn't consider your heart rate, but rather the duration of your workout and your age/weight/etc).

The 310XT is much more precise because it uses a formula that actually takes into consideration your heart rate over the duration of your cardio workout and kicks out a calorie burn that is the most precise on the market. That's why so many people are paying an extra $200 for the big (and kind of funky looking) 310XT.

Hopefully, within a year or two, the new watches will also have the premier function of the 310XT at a much lower price. Until then, you're best off to use the formula kicked out by the heart rate monitor watch as long as you are udpating your weight as you lose, to ensure that it's calculating calories based on your correct weight.

Just remember that with these (non 310XT) monitors, they're typically off by as much as 20% so if you're eating some of your calories, be safe and consider that you may have burned 20% less than your watch says you did. That's the same rule as for restaurant nutritional information (take what they tell you and add 20% just to be safe!).

Sure makes all of this calorie math harder than it needs to be, huh?

Hope that helps more than it confuses you!!

-- Robin

Thank you for your input hun. Makes sense that the HRM can't be wholly accurate either. I mean, it has no idea of my muscle mass and if its not using my heart rate, then I would well imagine it's off!! (cos my heart is pumping out my chest when I do step!!! lol) I think I will do a few more exercises, including walking, and compare again. And then its trial and error if I stop losing. At the moment, I'm losing so I think that I was wise not to eat back all my exercise cals.

thanks again :flowerforyou:

AnnaPixie

Thanks for your input everyone Very interesting :flowerforyou: