MFP calorie counter VS new HRM calorie count - help??

Lanfear

Hi all

I bought myself an HRM yesterday and used it for the first time to do my Shred (which I've just finished).

When I log it as circuit training, general, MFP gives me 179 cals for it. However my HRM has just given a count of 331 - not quite double the MFP count!!!!

I am a little surprised that the HRM was so high - does that seem about right?? I'm 38, and currently weigh 148lbs. I'm on D2 of L2 of the Shred.

Thanks for any help, have never used an HRM before!

spaboleo

If you set up your HRM correctly (entering age, acutal weight etc.) then trust your HRM.

Lanfear

If you set up your HRM correctly (entering age, acutal weight etc.) then trust your HRM.

Well my OH has set it up for me so I presume it is correct - the instructions might as well be in Latin as far as I am concerned LOL.

dweaddy2

Depends on what HRM you bought. Unfortunately, Timex and Polar use proprietary formulas to calculate calories burned. Based upon comments I've seen around the web, it seems to be a concensus that the HRM's over-estimate calories burned. I've been doing Insanity workouts (45-60 mins) and I use the calories from MFP for Aerobics-High Impact to be conservative. Usually 100+ calories less than my Timex Ironman Personal Trainer HRM.

savvynurse

My HRM has an option where you can input the intensity of your workout...........mild to OMGHOWTHEHELLDOYOUDOTHAT???!!!When its set on the mild I burn less cals than I think is right and when it is set the the most difficult level it tells me I burned an outrageous number. Read your instructions and see what you get. I usually only get a bout 150-220 on JM Shred

Laura

Page83

best to go by the HRM, when ive punched in the detaiils of my workouts into something like this they have been waaaaaay off (not in a good way like yours) for eg once i put in that i was on the elliptical for 60 mins and was told i had burned about 600-700 cals YAY but when i got my monitor i was actualy only burning 300.

good luck with the shred, i LOVE it i completed it about a week ago but still do it everyday, it has improved my indurance heaps, before i started i was only jogging about 2.5 km of my 5km walk/run now i do about 4km (i dont run up the hills, not ready to die just yet lol).

Swilson87

I you have a HR Monitor with a chest strap, and you input all the correct details, it should be accurate. The chest strap takes the guess work out of things, because it monitoring your actual HR. Anything else is unfortunately a guess.

dithyramb

I think the heart rate monitor is a little more accurate because it is responding to how hard the exercise is for YOUR body in response to unique circumstances, and should account for your height, weight, and gender. When you say you walked or ellipticaled for 60 minutes, does MFP account for hills, your pushing a stroller, your effort, the resistance/incline on your machine, etc.? I hadn't worked out in years and when I started my diet 3 weeks ago I'd burn about 1000 calories on a certain bike route (according to the HRM) (with my son on a tandem trailer in tow) and only 3 weeks later, after doing the same route about 10 times, I only burn 500 calories (according to HRM). That makes sense to me because it feels a lot easier now, my heart doesn't race so much, and I assume my body is more efficient.

Lanfear

Well i don't know whether to be worried or not re the HRM and how accurate it is - it does have a chest strap. I have a small hand-held HRM thing (no good for exercise as you have to put your finger on the sensor) and we did a comparison of the two, whilst just sitting on the sofa.

The HRM/chest strap to start with was within 8 beats of the hand-held - but then the difference got larger. The hand-held consistently measured 72-78 BPM over a space of 30 minutes while the HRM/chest strap measured between 86 and 105 during the same time period. If I'm relying on it to try and tell me what calories I've burned it's a bit worrying that it's so different. We also have a blood pressure monitor (OH has high blood pressure) and that also measured 73 BMP while we were comparing the other two devices.

I also noticed that while I did my Shred, the "percentage" that my heart was working at was 99% of my MHR for the pretty much the whole 25 minute workout - which I understand from other sites is "redline" level. Now I cycle to/from work, horse ride and have been doing the shred for 12 days. Should it be that high??? I was out of breath and sweating but then that's no different than when I used to go to the gym...?

spaboleo

Those optical sensor HMRs aren't the best choice.
I just wrote something about them in another thread yesterday (http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/186538-heart-rate-monitor):

I wouldn't recommend that.

The reason is that a heart rate monitor with the breast-strap measures your heart frequency and not your pulse rate (counted by the blood flushes per minute e.g. at your main artery at your ankle.
If your heart rates gets quite high two muscle contractions of your heart (the heartbeat) could get so close together that the pulse of the blood flush can't be countably told apart.

There are a few of those devices on the market. (e.g. from the brand "Beurer")
Most of them look like a glove with a ring around your index finger. That ring rays light through your fingertip and counts the blood flushes going through it.
But I experienced those as even more uncomfortable to wear and even not really accurate.

In conclusion the HRM with chest strap should be more accurate than the hand-held with optical sensor.
But I believe that your HRM is either of a not adviseably bad built-quality, or set up wrong (did you enter all your data, like age, weight etc. correctly?) or maybe even just faulty/broken.


If you were working out at 99% of your Max Heart Rate you should be really close to passing out. That can't be true...
How did you determine the Max Heart Rate? If it is calculated by the HRM by itself, the value is only an advise an may vary depending on your physical condition. Of course this can only be calculated anyhow if you set up the HRM properly (see above).

Lanfear

Those optical sensor HMRs aren't the best choice.

In conclusion the HRM with chest strap should be more accurate than the hand-held with optical sensor.
But I believe that your HRM is either of a not adviseably bad built-quality, or set up wrong (did you enter all your data, like age, weight etc. correctly?) or maybe even just faulty/broken.


If you were working out at 99% of your Max Heart Rate you should be really close to passing out. That can't be true...
How did you determine the Max Heart Rate? If it is calculated by the HRM by itself, the value is only an advise an may vary depending on your physical condition. Of course this can only be calculated anyhow if you set up the HRM properly (see above).

My OH put in the data - so that should be fine. My MHR should be around the 182 mark - using the 220-age formula. However the HRM should calcuate it automatically based on the info entered.

The REALLY worrying thing is that this morning, after 3 minutes of warming up, while I was not even particularly out of breath, and felt totally fine, the thing started screaming at me that my heart rate was 239!!!!!!! It continued to log it at that rate for the entire workout. I actually stopped and took my pulse myself, while the HRM was declaring 239, and I only made it 125!!!!!!!

I just don't understand how it can be so wildly out of whack - I presume if my heart really WAS banging away at 239 I'd be on a trolley in the nearest A&E dept! I know I'm not exactly uberfit, so I was expecting heart rate to be around 140-155 or so, but 239??????

spaboleo

Do your math...this would mean 4 beats per second...impossible.
Get it to your retailer and let it be replaced.

kamk16

Like someone else mentioned you may have a faulty HRM. We have a blood pressure machine here because my husband has high blood pressure and doctors wanted him to keep track of it at home for a while. When he was getting kindof high readings but right on at doc they had him bring it in and found out it measures a little high so now we just take that into account but I would say you probably want to send your's back and get a new one and see if you have the same results.

heathersmilez

My HRM says about 150 cals for the full 26 min of 30DS, I'm 138 lbs, 5'8 28 yrs old - ok that's a lot of 8',s just noticed

MFP says 217 cals so I have the opposite issue.

JustAnotherBob

Sounds like a faulty HRM ... but also, do you make sure the contact areas are wet before putting on the chest strap? Does the strap have a snug fit? I had a faulty FT7 that acted like yours, replaced it and have been satisfied ever since.

You can also drive yourself crazy trying to compare the HRM readings with suggested numbers from MFP or other sites on the web. I've found it best to just trust the HRM and go with one set of numbers.

As Confucius once said - "Person with one watch knows the exact time. Person with two watches is never quite sure"

Lanfear

Do your math...this would mean 4 beats per second...impossible.
Get it to your retailer and let it be replaced.

LOL I'm bad at maths but even I thought 239 was a bit ridiculous!! Back to the shop it is - and back to guestimating the calories on MFP!

Thanks for the other comments - been typing this post for about 20 mins LOL and the phone keeps ringing.

As the HRM is reading the heartrate so high, the calories burned cannot possibly be accurate - that's all I want it for really - I'm not bothered about training and fitness zones, I just want to know what I've burned!

Re the chest strap, yes to both questions, it's wetted before I put it on and then it is pulled tight. It sits just under my bust where my bra sits.

So the options are either I'm doing something totally wrong when I wear it or it's cr*p!!! :grumble: