HRM vs MFP vs Edomondo calories

CraigIW

Hi all,

So, tonight my wife and I went out for a bike ride. She wore a wireless HRM (chest strap) for the first time and it gave some very surprising results!

We did 8.2 miles in an hour. It's mostly gentle slopes and some flatter bits, but with three distinct, short hills. She weighs around 135kg and had an average heart rate of about 145 bpm for the hour. These are the approximate figures:

MFP - 570 calories
Edomondo app - 500 calories
HRM - 1,650 calories! (no typo, that is over 1,000 higher!)

Now this is a good lot of effort, and her heart rate is high for an hour, so I can see it being a lot of calories, but 1,000 more than MFP is saying?

Does anyone who is fairly heavy have any insight into this, or advice as to what kind of figure to use?

Thanks.

taso42_DELETED

Was the HRM calibrated to her - age, weight, sex, max HR (if supported), VO2 max (if supported) ?

rickpearce

That is about my weight, though I am male so the formula may be different. I just did my stationary bike for 50 minutes wearing my HRM and I burned just under 600 calories. My avg heart rate was I think 138. Friday I did jogging for only 28 minutes and had a higher avg heart rate, I think around 145 and in those 28 mins burned 375 cals.

If everything is setup properly in the HRM configuration then there isn't really much reason to doubt it.

raisingbabyk

wow! I've always wondered about HRM vs MFP! I want to get a HRM

FutureM

I do not have a HRM, but from what I've heard from other people on this site it that MFP is definitely OFF on calories burned. :-/

CraigIW

Was the HRM calibrated to her - age, weight, sex, max HR (if supported), VO2 max (if supported) ?

Age and weight, but none of the rest.

ShannonMpls

I do not think 1,600+ is possible.

My heart rate monitor is very close to what this calculator uses:
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

I don't know your wife's age, so I estimated at 35 and came up with 430 calories burned in 60 minutes with that average heart rate. That sounds about right to me.

ValerieSW

I do not think 1,600+ is possible.

My heart rate monitor is very close to what this calculator uses:
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

I don't know your wife's age, so I estimated at 35 and came up with 430 calories burned in 60 minutes with that average heart rate. That sounds about right to me.

I'm 44, and I think the avg heart rate was more like 150 for the hour.

dad106

Was the HRM calibrated to her - age, weight, sex, max HR (if supported), VO2 max (if supported) ?

Age and weight, but none of the rest.

yea thats where the problem lies.. if its just age and weight, then it's prob. assuming she's a male which is going to give her a higher calorie burn.

I'd tell her to look into getting a different HRM.

Mandyw58

I'm not around the same weight, but for comparison, I bike with both my Polar HRM and Endomondo. I also used the Sports Tracker by Nokia app since I'm still trying to decide which app I like better.

For an hour-long, 9.8 mile ride on gravel trail (fairly flat but windy), my heart rate is generally around 155-160 on average (my max HR is high - around 210). My calorie burn is very similar for my HRM (480), Endomondo (490), and SportsTracker (450). MFP does underestimate my calories (380).

I always trust my HRM over MFP, but that's a huge discrepancy for your wife's burn. Like others, I think that seems unreasonably high, and I'd be more tempted to follow Endomondo's or MFP's estimate for that activity, as long as Endomondo is set up for her properly (ie. did you enter in her weight in the Endomondo app settings).

ShannonMpls

I'm 44, and I think the avg heart rate was more like 150 for the hour.

For those stats, the calculator I linked approximates 471 an hour - still not close to 1,600.
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm