Question for HRM vs MFP

Dive_Girl

Ok....so I just got back from a 60 min run. My heart rate monitor has much less calories burned vs the MFP website by a lot. Which should I go with? My HRM says 389 total burned and MFP says somewhere around 500+ burned. The is a huge gap there.

VballLeash

Are you sure your hrm was working the whole time? Sometimes mine jumps around... I usually burn around 80 calories per mile but new runners burn around 100 or more.. I don't know how long you've been running but I would imagine awhile since you ran for an hour. How fast were you running? Maybe you didn't get your heart rate up high enough to burn as much as you would thinkt? Hope this helped :happy:

~Leash

Azdak

In this case MFP is almost certainly the more accurate number. At your weight, 389 calories in an hour indicates a brisk walking speed, not a running speed (5 METS). Even running at a 12:00 min mile is 8.6 METS.

Dive_Girl

Thank you both. I just started a running clinic and I am running/walking in intervals. My heart rate was WAY up there and I thought I had burned more calories that just 389 but maybe it's correct because of the walking interval. So although I was run/walking for an hour, my intervals are 8min run/2min walk. My heart rate was averaging around 160 during the run and 140 during the walk. Hopefully as I progress my calorie burn will be greater.

msarro

Thank you both. I just started a running clinic and I am running/walking in intervals. My heart rate was WAY up there and I thought I had burned more calories that just 389 but maybe it's correct because of the walking interval. So although I was run/walking for an hour, my intervals are 8min run/2min walk. My heart rate was averaging around 160 during the run and 140 during the walk. Hopefully as I progress my calorie burn will be greater.

Sure that your HRM is functioning properly? What brand/model is it?

Dive_Girl

[/quote]

Sure that your HRM is functioning properly? What brand/model is it?
[/quote]

Hey there msarro!!! haven't talk to you since I started! Ok i have a garmin 305. However, I stole it from my guy....it did dawn on me this morning that I may want to check the profile to see how specific it was. Did it have weight, height, age, sex.....

msarro

That could make some difference, actually. Does it sit on your wrist, or does it use a chest strap?

Also, how do you like it thus far? I was considering getting one for running :laugh:

Dive_Girl

That could make some difference, actually. Does it sit on your wrist, or does it use a chest strap?

Also, how do you like it thus far? I was considering getting one for running :laugh:

it's a wrist watch with a chest strap and other than the calorie count being kind of low I love it! I love the fact that it has a built in GPS and I can track where I've been, what my BPM was at any given point within my path, how fast I was going and so on. It's a pretty cool gaget. He's giving me his because he wants the upgrade to the 310XT so he can swim with it. I have a friend runs triathlons and that is the model she uses. But for me, the 305 is more than I need. Love it!

Azdak

Sure that your HRM is functioning properly? What brand/model is it?

Hey there msarro!!! haven't talk to you since I started! Ok i have a garmin 305. However, I stole it from my guy....it did dawn on me this morning that I may want to check the profile to see how specific it was. Did it have weight, height, age, sex.....

The problem is with the garmin. The HR functions and GPS functions on the 305 are good, but the calorie counter is pretty useless. The Garmins use your speed of movement, not heart rate, to measure calories. If you consider all the extensive research that Polar has done to develop their heart rate/calories expended algorithms and Polar HRMs are probably only 80%-85% accurate at best, you can imagine how far off the Garmin is. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but google "garmin 305 calorie accuracy" and you will get more detail.

Dive_Girl

Sure that your HRM is functioning properly? What brand/model is it?

Hey there msarro!!! haven't talk to you since I started! Ok i have a garmin 305. However, I stole it from my guy....it did dawn on me this morning that I may want to check the profile to see how specific it was. Did it have weight, height, age, sex.....

The problem is with the garmin. The HR functions and GPS functions on the 305 are good, but the calorie counter is pretty useless. The Garmins use your speed of movement, not heart rate, to measure calories. If you consider all the extensive research that Polar has done to develop their heart rate/calories expended algorithms and Polar HRMs are probably only 80%-85% accurate at best, you can imagine how far off the Garmin is. Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but google "garmin 305 calorie accuracy" and you will get more detail.

Strangely enough, that actually makes me feel better :laugh:

Thank you!

Amy_B

I know you already got some answers, but I thought I'd chime in anyway. When I run (albeit it kind of slowly) for 40 minutes straight, I burn between 400-500 calories. I weigh about the same as you, so I think you're probably burning more if your HR is where you say it is. That's about where mine is too the whole time.

vhuber

I was glad to read this about the HRM and I always love reading your reply's AZDAK cuz of your fitness knowledge! I asked my "rich" son to buy me a POLAR F6 for xmas because yesterday I ran 31/2 miles pushing a baby jogger with my 35 # grandson in it and it said I burned 138 calories . Needless to say I was *issed because I pushed myself to where it was rather hard to breathe! So no garmin for me cuz I want accuracy!! Hey that rhymed!! Best to all you fitness pals!!!
Verda