Major difference in calories burned from MFP and HRM

DebbieLyn63

I have been riding my stationary recumbent 4-6 days a week and have been recording my calories burned. I haven't been eating back my exercise calories, as I use the burn to up my weight loss. There is a computer on my bike that tells me how many cals I have burned, and that number is a bit lower than MFP says, so I go with the lower number. Today I used my new Polar HRM that has a chest strap, during my ride to see how accurately the calories burned were, compared to the bike and MFP.

These were my numbers.

30 minutes I went 6.43 miles,
Average speed 13.26MPH
Average HR 118 Max HR 124 Time in zone- 29:15 (fat burn zone is 111-140)
Calories burned 177

The same ride on my bike computer said 340 calories burned and the MFP database said I burned 377 calories.

WOW! I thought the numbers sounded a bit high, but I had no idea that they were TWO TIMES the actual calories burned. I am SO glad that I do not eat back my exercise calories, or else I would really be frustrated that I wasn't losing weight. Fortunately, because I don't eat them back, I am losing at a reasonable rate.

Just thought I'd share this with you all.

truddy6647

yeah I thought every time I logged exercise on here was a bit high. I use another cite that is connected to my gym that shows my workouts to be much less than what mfp. (I use mfp because my doc wants me to)

I was thinking about getting something like a body bugg from what i read it is suppose to give a more accurate measurement than hrm does for calories burned. Not sure yet though as I am on a budget

Alexdur85

You also have to make sure that the bike is related to you and your height and weight. I would assume you can input them in. So it could be wrong and that's why there is such a high burn.

skmolove

wow, interesting :noway:

rubypoh

I recently posted something similar and no one responded to me:

I use a heart monitor watch. I also like to use the GPS app on my phone to track my miles and time. I used both today during my walk. I went 2.5 miles in 45 minutes. According the the app I burned 293 calories. According to the heart monitor I burned 500. My assumption is that the heart monitor is more accurate. What I don't understand is why they are so so different. I have my weight and height entered into both programs.


I also wonder about eating back calories burned. I want to lose weight but I also worry I won't have enough energy if I don't eat more. And the difference between 293 calories and 500 is huge. I don't know what to think.

katevarner

I recently posted something similar and no one responded to me:

I use a heart monitor watch. I also like to use the GPS app on my phone to track my miles and time. I used both today during my walk. I went 2.5 miles in 45 minutes. According the the app I burned 293 calories. According to the heart monitor I burned 500. My assumption is that the heart monitor is more accurate. What I don't understand is why they are so so different. I have my weight and height entered into both programs.


I also wonder about eating back calories burned. I want to lose weight but I also worry I won't have enough energy if I don't eat more. And the difference between 293 calories and 500 is huge. I don't know what to think.

Then you are better off not using MFP's numbers. Have you figured your BMR and TDEE? If not, try that, and then eat 500 fewer calories than your TDEE for 1 lb per week or 1000 calories fewer for 2. Typically, the monitor is closer, but it depends which monitor.

JaceyMarieS

That's one of the reasons I just use my fitbit adjustment...it seems much more reasonable. If i do something that can't be measured with the fitbit (swimming, biking, etc) I count 1/2 the time and figure it evens out in the end.

DebbieLyn63

Monitors with the chest strap are much more accurate than the watch ones without the strap. My watch only one never showed my HR over 118, even when I was spinning at 20 MPH. The chest strap gives an accurate, continuous HR.

DebbieLyn63

I also wonder about eating back calories burned. I want to lose weight but I also worry I won't have enough energy if I don't eat more. And the difference between 293 calories and 500 is huge. I don't know what to think.

For most people, unless you are working at a high intensity, or at a moderate intensity for longer than 2 hours, you don't need much if any extra calories for added energy. I may eat 100 less calories on days I don't work out, simply because I am not hungry, but normally don't need any above my normal daily amount on the days I work out for an hour or so.

Becky388

I also wonder about eating back calories burned. I want to lose weight but I also worry I won't have enough energy if I don't eat more. And the difference between 293 calories and 500 is huge. I don't know what to think.

For most people, unless you are working at a high intensity, or at a moderate intensity for longer than 2 hours, you don't need much if any extra calories for added energy. I may eat 100 less calories on days I don't work out, simply because I am not hungry, but normally don't need any above my normal daily amount on the days I work out for an hour or so.

Totally agree. At the that level your body needs to learn to burn fat for fuel - that's what it's for afterall. If you really totally on carbs or other calories for fuel you'll only maintain or worse, gain instead of losing fat. Now if you are training extremely hard you may need extra food however most people do not fall in that group.