Heart Rate Monitor vs. MFP Calculator

cjdcmom
cjdcmom Posts: 28
in Fitness and Exercise
My heart rate monitor indicates a much larger calorie burn than the MFP calculator. Which is most accurate? For instance during my cycling class my HRM will say that I burned around 1000 calories. Both calculators take weight into account.

Replies

  • wellbert
    wellbert Posts: 3,924 Member
    Mine does that too.

    It's hard to say, really. I'd give the nod to the HRM.

    Try taking the average heart rate and plugging it into a few online calorie calculators that are based on HR
  • oneIT
    oneIT Posts: 388 Member
    Folow your HRM. MFP is way off usually.
  • cjdcmom
    cjdcmom Posts: 28
    Good idea thanks!
  • jones137
    jones137 Posts: 89 Member
    HRM is going to be more accurate because it measures the intensity of your workout (average HR during workout) while MFP makes assumptions.....pretty accurate assumptions but assumption none the less.
  • cindybowcut
    cindybowcut Posts: 250 Member
    I agree, go with your HRM. It is based off not only weight but your actual heart rate. There are certain things that I can't wear my HRM while I am doing them such as water aerobics, so with that I use the MFP calculator.
  • feather314
    feather314 Posts: 97
    I was just about to post a similar topic as I purchased a HRM last week.

    Seems that most people feel the MFP database estimates high but my HRM is giving me similar burns or sometimes even higher. I think the general nature of the database kind of limits things. It doesn't count for actual intensity so like someone else said it "assumes".

    I'm gonna go with my HRM and see how that works for me.
  • mattack
    mattack Posts: 137 Member
    Heart rate monitor.... but I notice once I adjust MFP for the calorie burned on my HRM as long as I do the same workout MFP seems to retain the info.
  • cjdcmom
    cjdcmom Posts: 28
    Well considering the HRM is the higher of the two. I'm glad to hear it:-)
  • MinnesotaManimal
    MinnesotaManimal Posts: 642 Member
    My polar FT-7 cosistently gives me 30-35% higher calorie burns than MFP's calculations. I do not "eat back" exercise calories, so it doesn't affect me that much. just find it intruiging.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,329 Member
    It depends. If your HRM has a chest strap and allows you to at the very least enter you age, height, weight and sex, then I would go with the HRM. If it does not have a chest strap or does not allow you to input your sex, then I would go with whichever one is lower.
  • vettle
    vettle Posts: 621 Member
    If you have a HRM you may as well use it. I don't have one and I've been using MFP for my calories burned and I lost all my weight that way. Do what works for you.
  • tappae
    tappae Posts: 568 Member
    The HRM is probably more accurate, but it's based on assumptions too. There may be a strong correlation between heart rate and caloric burn (when I'm doing something that burns calories at a higher rate my heart rate is probably going to be elevated) but it's not a causal relationship. For example, let's imagine that there are two people with the same height, weight and age but one of them is heavily muscled and very fit and the other one is sedentary and obese. If they do the same activity (say, walking a certain distance) the MFP calculator will say that they burned the same number of calories. If they're wearing HRMs, the obese person will probably get a higher calorie burn, since they're not used to exercise and the fit person's heart rate might not even go up. In reality, though, the fit one will probably be burning more calories since they have more muscle.

    To the OP, I would go with the lower number just to be safe. Oh and I should say that I have the same problem. I get a higher number with my HRM. In fact, I just went to get a new battery for it so I can start using it again. I would say that it depends on what type of exercise you're doing which one is more accurate. For instance, I ran my long run this past weekend on a very difficult mountain biking trail and was only able to manage about 5 MPH, so that's what I put into the MFP calculator. In reality, it felt like a much harder workout than when I run 6 MPH on pavement (my quads were actually sore the next day). Today, I'm going to be running hills, so I think it will be the same sort of thing. I'm going to wear the HRM and compare the two.
  • jones137
    jones137 Posts: 89 Member
    The HRM is probably more accurate, but it's based on assumptions too. There may be a strong correlation between heart rate and caloric burn (when I'm doing something that burns calories at a higher rate my heart rate is probably going to be elevated) but it's not a causal relationship. For example, let's imagine that there are two people with the same height, weight and age but one of them is heavily muscled and very fit and the other one is sedentary and obese. If they do the same activity (say, walking a certain distance) the MFP calculator will say that they burned the same number of calories. If they're wearing HRMs, the obese person will probably get a higher calorie burn, since they're not used to exercise and the fit person's heart rate might not even go up. In reality, though, the fit one will probably be burning more calories since they have more muscle.

    To the OP, I would go with the lower number just to be safe. Oh and I should say that I have the same problem. I get a higher number with my HRM. In fact, I just went to get a new battery for it so I can start using it again. I would say that it depends on what type of exercise you're doing which one is more accurate. For instance, I ran my long run this past weekend on a very difficult mountain biking trail and was only able to manage about 5 MPH, so that's what I put into the MFP calculator. In reality, it felt like a much harder workout than when I run 6 MPH on pavement (my quads were actually sore the next day). Today, I'm going to be running hills, so I think it will be the same sort of thing. I'm going to wear the HRM and compare the two.

    Novice question, but why would the fit person be burning more calories just because they have more muscle? Not sure I understand that statement.
  • vettle
    vettle Posts: 621 Member
    The HRM is probably more accurate, but it's based on assumptions too. There may be a strong correlation between heart rate and caloric burn (when I'm doing something that burns calories at a higher rate my heart rate is probably going to be elevated) but it's not a causal relationship. For example, let's imagine that there are two people with the same height, weight and age but one of them is heavily muscled and very fit and the other one is sedentary and obese. If they do the same activity (say, walking a certain distance) the MFP calculator will say that they burned the same number of calories. If they're wearing HRMs, the obese person will probably get a higher calorie burn, since they're not used to exercise and the fit person's heart rate might not even go up. In reality, though, the fit one will probably be burning more calories since they have more muscle.

    To the OP, I would go with the lower number just to be safe. Oh and I should say that I have the same problem. I get a higher number with my HRM. In fact, I just went to get a new battery for it so I can start using it again. I would say that it depends on what type of exercise you're doing which one is more accurate. For instance, I ran my long run this past weekend on a very difficult mountain biking trail and was only able to manage about 5 MPH, so that's what I put into the MFP calculator. In reality, it felt like a much harder workout than when I run 6 MPH on pavement (my quads were actually sore the next day). Today, I'm going to be running hills, so I think it will be the same sort of thing. I'm going to wear the HRM and compare the two.

    Novice question, but why would the fit person be burning more calories just because they have more muscle? Not sure I understand that statement.

    Because muscles burn three times as many calories than fat does. This is why strength training is really really important (among so many other reasons).
  • tappae
    tappae Posts: 568 Member

    Novice question, but why would the fit person be burning more calories just because they have more muscle? Not sure I understand that statement.

    Because muscles burn three times as many calories than fat does. This is why strength training is really really important (among so many other reasons).

    Yeah, caloric burn is determined by the internal activity of our bodies. Muscles are more active (they have more blood flow and more of the cells whose activity determines our overall metabolism).
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,329 Member
    The HRM is probably more accurate, but it's based on assumptions too. There may be a strong correlation between heart rate and caloric burn (when I'm doing something that burns calories at a higher rate my heart rate is probably going to be elevated) but it's not a causal relationship. For example, let's imagine that there are two people with the same height, weight and age but one of them is heavily muscled and very fit and the other one is sedentary and obese. If they do the same activity (say, walking a certain distance) the MFP calculator will say that they burned the same number of calories. If they're wearing HRMs, the obese person will probably get a higher calorie burn, since they're not used to exercise and the fit person's heart rate might not even go up. In reality, though, the fit one will probably be burning more calories since they have more muscle.

    To the OP, I would go with the lower number just to be safe. Oh and I should say that I have the same problem. I get a higher number with my HRM. In fact, I just went to get a new battery for it so I can start using it again. I would say that it depends on what type of exercise you're doing which one is more accurate. For instance, I ran my long run this past weekend on a very difficult mountain biking trail and was only able to manage about 5 MPH, so that's what I put into the MFP calculator. In reality, it felt like a much harder workout than when I run 6 MPH on pavement (my quads were actually sore the next day). Today, I'm going to be running hills, so I think it will be the same sort of thing. I'm going to wear the HRM and compare the two.

    That is not necessarily true. The fit person will likely burn more calories then the HRM says unless it allows the entry of V02Max. If it does, then the allowance for the fitness level of the person is worked in as well. The other factor that has to be incorporated in this is that the fit person is also more efficient at exercise, and that leads to a given activity taking less energy (calories) than it would if done less efficiently. I wish it was as easy as a fit person burning more calories because of more muscle, but it really is much more complex than that.
  • tappae
    tappae Posts: 568 Member
    That is not necessarily true. The fit person will likely burn more calories then the HRM says unless it allows the entry of V02Max. If it does, then the allowance for the fitness level of the person is worked in as well. The other factor that has to be incorporated in this is that the fit person is also more efficient at exercise, and that leads to a given activity taking less energy (calories) than it would if done less efficiently. I wish it was as easy as a fit person burning more calories because of more muscle, but it really is much more complex than that.

    I'm sure you're right. It's certainly very complicated. I wasn't thinking about the same individual at different levels of fitness, but rather about say a body builder versus a couch potato at the same weight. I honestly don't know, though. Have there been any studies into this? What, if any, would be the difference between the BMR of someone at 250 pounds and less than 10% bodyfat (say 225 lean mass) and someone at 250 pounds and over 50% body mass (say 125 pounds of lean)?
  • MirandaEnlightened
    MirandaEnlightened Posts: 31
    What kind of HRM's do ya'll have?? I still need to get one...

Categories