Heart Rate Monitor Calories vs. MFP Calories

I_Bake_Cakes23

And it's probably been asked before but I'm not having too much luck with my search abilities.

AnyWHO....

Yesterday I went for a bike ride - 16.66 miles... GO ME! I have an app on my phone that tracks my mph which averaged around 11. I was out for an hour and a half. I typed that info into the "Cycling, 10-12 mph, light" item on MFP and it said that I burned 545 calories. I bought a heart rate monitor on Saturday and wore it last night. It said I burned 1325 calories in that hour and a half. That's a HUGE difference!

Basically I'm wondering if my heart rate monitor is accurate? I have the Sportline Duo 1010.

I did work hard on my bike ride and it was outside with hills and such so I can understand why there is a difference but to burn that many calories seems CRAZY to me!

Britt22706

I would lean more towards the HRM (especially if it has a chest strap) because it logs your heart rate, where MFP doesn't know your constant/changing heart rate during the entire exercise. Just to be safe, I think I would go in between the two, just because you don't want to give yourself extra calories and spoil you diet. I either do an average or take the lower one.

Angela_MA

bump

JCubbins

bump

clvdandj

And it's probably been asked before but I'm not having too much luck with my search abilities.

AnyWHO....

Yesterday I went for a bike ride - 16.66 miles... GO ME! I have an app on my phone that tracks my mph which averaged around 11. I was out for an hour and a half. I typed that info into the "Cycling, 10-12 mph, light" item on MFP and it said that I burned 545 calories. I bought a heart rate monitor on Saturday and wore it last night. It said I burned 1325 calories in that hour and a half. That's a HUGE difference!

Basically I'm wondering if my heart rate monitor is accurate? I have the Sportline Duo 1010.

I did work hard on my bike ride and it was outside with hills and such so I can understand why there is a difference but to burn that many calories seems CRAZY to me!

try using this formula with your heart rate and see what this tells you compared to those two seperate reading for calories

Women: C/min = (-20.4022 + 0.4472 x HR - 0.1263 x weight + 0.074 x age) / 4.184

where weight is in kilograms and C stands for Kcals.

this will give you your burn of calories per min, so multiply that by how many minutes you rode your bike. And you have to convert most likely your weight to kilograms, and Kcals to cals. in the end.

sprinkies

i would go with what you HRM tells you, as it takes YOUR body into consideration, not a generic person.

i read somewhere online that a 160 pound woman with 40% body fat would burn LESS calories than a 160 pound woman with 20% body fat doing the exact same workout. so your own personal fitness level/body fat % plays into how many calories you burn.

I_Bake_Cakes23

I would lean more towards the HRM (especially if it has a chest strap) because it logs your heart rate, where MFP doesn't know your constant/changing heart rate during the entire exercise. Just to be safe, I think I would go in between the two, just because you don't want to give yourself extra calories and spoil you diet. I either do an average or take the lower one.

Yes, it does have a chest strap that I wore. I will probably end up averaging though, because you're right, I don' t want to increase my caloric intake if I don't need to and ruin my diet!

margonadeau

My HRM has a program that you work out for 5 minutes light then 5 minutes moderate and then 5 minutes hard that way it sets your HRM to your body and your work outs. Check to see if you have that

KidP

HRM all the way - if it is the kind that is constantly taking readings (i.e. chest strap style) - and - if you are using it properly. Did you have to program in your age, weight, height, etc? Remember, MFP's database is nothing more than an estimate. When a good HRM is working well, it's much more accurate.

clark114

I rode 18 miles yesterday, 14 mph, and it took me 84 minutes. My HRM said I burned a little over 500 calories and I think that is accurate.

I_Bake_Cakes23

HRM all the way - if it is the kind that is constantly taking readings (i.e. chest strap style) - and - if you are using it properly. Did you have to program in your age, weight, height, etc? Remember, MFP's database is nothing more than an estimate. When a good HRM is working well, it's much more accurate.

I did program in my height, weight, sex, etc.

I know that MFP is just an average but the part that's throwing me off is the such large number I got on the heart rate monitor. It's brand new, chances are it is working properly. Maybe I'm just looking too much into this!