Discrepency between HRM and mfp calories burned. WHY SO BIG?

Options
2»

Replies

  • jonchew
    jonchew Posts: 239 Member
    Options
    Today's workout: My HRM/Endomondo told me that I burned 1066kCal, & MFP came-in at 959kCal... today it was fairly close. When you take-into account all of the variables (at least when running), such as pace, intensity, geography (hills) and wind - the actual calories really vary from day to day, even on the same course. I think MFP does a great job at guestimating calories burned, they have very little information to go on, after all.
  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,616 Member
    Options
    I've seen how far off MFP is in every activity and I just accept that I burn much less. I still find it confusing, is everyones numbers so far off? If so, why?

    It's a conspiracy. MFP gives you a high number for calories burned then tells you to eat them or else you go into starvation mode.

    So you eat all false those exercise calories and cannot lose weight. This makes you stay here longer and see all the ads that many more times.

    It's genius. They are winning. How many posts do you see that say..."I'm doing everything right and still can't lose weight"?

    And just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they're not watching me... :-D
  • JennafurC
    JennafurC Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    My HRM also is always much higher than MFP gives me. My typical burn for an hour of zumba is about 550 on my HRM and on MFP its less than 300. Today I did a 90 minute zumba/kickboxing class and MFP gave me 445 calories burned and my HRM was about 850.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    HRM are the best and most accurate. APPs LIKE Endomando, MFP and other over est by at least 20%. Since i've purchased my HRM i would compare and its always over est. Invest in a HRM if possible.

    Could I ask about the basis for this view? It's being pretty strongly asserted on this thread by several people. I wondered what the evidence base is?

    I believe the basis is "groupthink" -- if something is repeated enough times, people start to believe it, regardless of whether it is true or not.

    What I don't understand is why people will dismiss machines, MFP, etc without a second thought, yet accept HRM numbers without any question whatsoever. Especially since they don't know the source of the data, or underlying methodology for ANY of those sources.

    I have written about these subjects numerous times. If anyone has the time or interest to go into more detail, you can visit

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak

    and go through some of the different related articles.
  • Smurfette1987
    Smurfette1987 Posts: 110 Member
    Options
    Thanks, I will read these. I have been finding that when I wear my chest strap on the treadmill the numbers are pretty much the same as what a calorie burn calculator based on average heart rate will give me, and still higher than my watch. I think I'll just have to get a decent watch.
    As for large heart rate reserves burning more, My resting heart rate is between 55-65 and I often go up to 185 during intervals and can still talk, and running 7.5 mph constantly it's about 170, sometimes doing insanity it goes up to the 190s and then I don't love it so much. I would say that's a reasonable heart rate reserve, but I still burn 400 cals per hr (really pushing myself) according to my watch, when mfp says 800+ :(

Categories