HRM v MFP calculations

RachelT14

I got my HRM yesterday so put it to the test this morning, i have been powerwalking most days as my main excercise and normally with varying speeds i input it into MFP and it comes out at 300-350 calories burnt. Did the exact same route i normally do at the same pace as normal this morning and my HRM says i burned 543 calories,

Is is possible that mfp was really this far out? I have been here 215 days now and have lost 22lbs, been on a plateau now for 6 weeks if i have been underestimating the calories burnt by such a huge amount then presumably i now have the answer to my problem!

athensguy

I can't be sure, but I think that my HRM (Garmin that doesn't use HR in Calorie calculations) can be a little inaccurate, but so far I'm using those calories and doing pretty well.

My wife just got a Polar FT4, and its calorie readings are higher than MFP estimates, too.

I guess the best way to tell if the estimates are right is to start using them and see if you make progress.

twiztedgrl69

MFP definitely under estimates your calories...I always go with what my HRM says personally

laineylynnfit

I agree. I would go with your HRM before MFP. I purchased a Garmin FR70. Should get it today. I am excited!

clarinh0

Go with your HRM as MFP does not know how heart rate - only age, weight and gender.

03one

I think MFP and the machines at the gym give you the average calories burned by an average weight person at an average level of fitness. If you're entering your height and weight into your HRM, I would trust that number over the more general figure. My heart rate monitor also provides the option to program in your lean muscle mass/fat percentages and uses those numbers (in addition to frequency of training) to determine calories burned. I found that because I was quite athletic, i was actually burning 100 calories LESS per hour than what MFP and the workout machines were telling me....