HRM vs MFP

kaylz0106

Quick q on HRM vs MFP for calories burnt.....which is more accurate? I did a 5k walk/powerwalk/jog this morning (mixing it up between al of those in intervals) I was out for 45 mins HRM says 665 cals burnt and MFP says 279...hell of a difference? my I don't watch my HR the whole time but it bleeps when I gt to 100% which apparently in my case is 197. I need educating people!

Spokez70

I have been using mine for about 6 weeks now (Polar FT7) and I have never had a wide variance like that. The numbers I see between what MFP suggests and the HRM says are usually within 5-10% of each other- sometimes up and sometimes down. I would tend to go with the HRM but seems like settings are off on one or the other.

mikes99mail

i was told to go with HRM, but that's a huuuuuge difference!!

Are you sure the age/height/weight are set up right on the HRM?

If they are, I guess going with the lower value would be the best way to avoid the 'but I burnt 10,000 calories last month, how have I not lost any weight??' issue......

kaylz0106

i was told to go with HRM, but that's a huuuuuge difference!!

Are you sure the age/height/weight are set up right on the HRM?

If they are, I guess going with the lower value would be the best way to avoid the 'but I burnt 10,000 calories last month, how have I not lost any weight??' issue......

Well if I went with HRM I would burn not far off that and a lot more most probably! They must be off! I will have to reset I think....watch this space!

KatelinBurns

A 665 calorie burn could be completely accurate for 45 minutes. However, the fact that your monitor said your HR reached 197 seems fishy to me. At 197 you'd wanna die. Lol so there may be a problem with it.

kaylz0106

HRM did go back becuase it died bought the exact same one also doesnt work now thinking its a shait make!