Difference between HRM and MFP calculations

Eliza1980

So I just used my Polar FT2 for the first time. I used this website (which I found recommended on MFP) http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm to calculate how many calories I burned. I calculated that I burned 622 while MFP said I only burned 410. I wasn't expecting such a big difference. Anyone else have this happen? And before you ask, my HRM has a chest strap!

AlsDonkBoxSquat

MFP calculations are based off of what someone else has put in and their experience, not based off of your body, your work out, your hr.

julwills

I had the opposite happen. MFP said I burned over 800 cals during an hour of zumba and my HRM says I burn about 650

jrich1

I always find MFP to be WAAAAAY off from what my HRM says.. I have a Polar FT7

loriannmartin

mfp always says i burn more than my hrm... i have a watch one....

AlsDonkBoxSquat

To add, I'm not really sure how that website you posted is working. Generally when you are more fit you burn less calories, but when I put in my starting stats and my current stats with the same hr and other out puts it showed I burn more at my 25 pound lighter weight. This makes me skeptical.

current:
128
33
175
0
759.34

starting:
150
33
175
0
741.23

Countrymade

I have a Polar too. Sometimes MFP are more sometimes less.
I would go with your HRM and not pay attention to MFP.

dad106

The Polar FT2 does not calculate calories, so I'm a bit confused as to how you are calculating calories with that HRM.

Any website(MFP or the one that you mentioned) only use estimates based off of your information. Since MFP does not know your heart rate or intensity, it's prob. not that accurate. The website that you mentioned, if you put your heart rate into it, it would be a bit more accurate I suppose but it's still a estimate.

I have the Polar FT7 and MFP is always different from what my HRM says but not by much.. maybe like 20 calories or so for walking. I don't even compare for my personal training sessions, mainly because I don't know what to classify them as exactly and I just created my own exercise.

Bumblebee26

Mine is coming up to about ~5 calorie swings based on various sites and MFP , which I don't think is to bad. I know the HR on it is good, because I've had a nurse check it several times and it is pretty dead on. I'm going to test it with some machines tonight at work and see what it says. I've only been using it since last night and today. It is a Sportline SX universal Combo with ECG HRM.

meghan1966

Your HRM should be accurate if it is one that will calculate calories burned. I have a Garmin fitness watch and had to input my height, weight, lifetime activity level, etc. When I do the elliptical at the gym, my HRM consistently tells me I burn 75-100+ LESS than what the elliptical says. Trust your HRM, it is more accurate.

Eliza1980

The Polar FT2 does not calculate calories, so I'm a bit confused as to how you are calculating calories with that HRM.

Any website(MFP or the one that you mentioned) only use estimates based off of your information. Since MFP does not know your heart rate or intensity, it's prob. not that accurate. The website that you mentioned, if you put your heart rate into it, it would be a bit more accurate I suppose but it's still a estimate.

I have the Polar FT7 and MFP is always different from what my HRM says but not by much.. maybe like 20 calories or so for walking. I don't even compare for my personal training sessions, mainly because I don't know what to classify them as exactly and I just created my own exercise.

The FT2 calculates my average HR and the website asked for my gender,age, weight, length of workout, and average HR

Teemo

I'd trust the heart rate monitor over the MFP calculator, but I'd go by my results over anything else. Not losing weight? Reduce the number of calories. Losing too much weight? Increase the number of calories.

dad106

The Polar FT2 does not calculate calories, so I'm a bit confused as to how you are calculating calories with that HRM.

Any website(MFP or the one that you mentioned) only use estimates based off of your information. Since MFP does not know your heart rate or intensity, it's prob. not that accurate. The website that you mentioned, if you put your heart rate into it, it would be a bit more accurate I suppose but it's still a estimate.

I have the Polar FT7 and MFP is always different from what my HRM says but not by much.. maybe like 20 calories or so for walking. I don't even compare for my personal training sessions, mainly because I don't know what to classify them as exactly and I just created my own exercise.

The FT2 calculates my average HR and the website asked for my gender,age, weight, length of workout, and average HR

If it asked for most of you're info then it's prob. pretty accurate, but I'd still take the readings with a grain of salt and not eat back all those calories.

phillukasz

Got this formula that are the basis for calories burnt, I have put it into an excel spread sheet, just put in age, weight, BPM, and duration. Most accurate formula I've found, just wack in the numbers and it calculates this formula, and yo can add on other workouts. I train twice a day, and it adds them all up.If ya want it it's yours. phil (email me and I'll send...... phillukasz@yahoo.com)

There is a mans version and Female

Here is the Men's Formula -> ((Age x 0.2017) + (Weight x 0.09036) + (Heart Rate x 0.6309) -- 55.0969) x Duration / 4.184 = Calories Burned (Kcals.)

This is the guys, but if ya want the Girls one, I can just plug in the girly numbers, simple to alter. Yep those guys at Polar kept that one quiet about the FT2. Not telling you what you want to know, I've got one myself

Regards phil

phillukasz

Got this formula that are the basis for calories burnt, I have put it into an excel spread sheet, just put in age, weight, BPM, and duration. Most accurate formula I've found, just wack in the numbers and it calculates this formula, and yo can add on other workouts. I train twice a day, and it adds them all up.If ya want it it's yours. phil (email me and I'll send...... phillukasz@yahoo.com)

There is a mans version and Female

Here is the Mens Formula -> ((Age x 0.2017) + (Weight x 0.09036) + (Heart Rate x 0.6309) -- 55.0969) x Duration / 4.184 = Calories Burned (Kcals.) yep you don't want to add this up daily.

This is the guys, but if ya want the Girls one, I can just plug in the girly numbers, simple to alter, and send it to you.. Yep those guys at Polar kept that one quiet about the FT2. Not telling you what you want to know, I've got one myself

Regards phil

phillukasz

Great for tablets and smart phones, can link it to all sorts, graphs the lot.

phillukasz

Nice... and a little scarey, but nice.

dondimitri

phillukasz,
I'm guessing that the duration number is in minutes?
Thanks.

Edit: If I got the parentheses in the right place (always a challenge) I got 651 calories for the following input data:
age 64
weight 170
avg hr 110
duration 60 minutes

phillukasz

Yep

phillukasz

Do ya want the girls set up, plus or minus a few cals, better than most of the watches out there some are built in China, and you can save it daily to keep a record.

dondimitri

oops I mean about 610 calories... rusty spreadsheet skills...

MORECHABLIS

I have a HRM linked to a watch, I've used GPS loggers & websites to find my calories used and used all three to see what they said about my calories used during the exercise.

EXAMPLE: (cycling over 160 minutes, 12-14 miles per hour)

My age 43, weight 264 lb. At the time...

Highest: GPS Logger (i-Gotu) = 3,921.calories

Medium: HRM monitor (cheap one) = 3,234 cals (I have bought a Polar H7 for my Samsung GS3, am waiting for update software update to use it)

Lowest: My Fitness Pal = 2610 calories

I can't wait until Samsung update the Bluetooth, so I can check all four...

I just tend to go with somewhere between the lowest and medium.

Danimal718

What GPS are you using? I did 24 miles in 1:25 at 17,ph avg the other day and my total calories per my Garmin software were 1400cal, MapMyRide was 2400cal and MFP was 2600. I use a Garmin 910xt and trust the software out of the 3. I am 42 and 261 right now.

phillukasz

40 mins around 670 Kcals, but I'm real fit, you do know that is a double negative at the end of the equation, not really clear... sorry. That means it's a plus, as in add that number?

Or email me and I'll send you the girls file in a jiffy?

regs

phil

dondimitri

The 910xt number, 1400, sounds reasonable. The others seem way high.

davert123

MFP calculations are based off of what someone else has put in and their experience, not based off of your body, your work out, your hr.

But HRMs are based on someone else's calorie burns for the same heart rate that you are showing:-) They are both just educated guesses of what a typical person will burn. They are calculated in different ways and some estimates will be good at some things, some at others and some not very accurate at all - and it not possible by looking at the numbers to know which is which. I suppose the best way would be to average the two numbers and assume that is what you have burned :-)