HRM vs Myfitness pal

RoosMommy01
RoosMommy01 Posts: 88
in Health and Weight Loss
Gonna try this again but in this section to see if I can get more answers on how I should handle this.

Ok I finally broke down and invested in an HRM since everyone was telling me that I was overestimating my calories when I worked out. Now someone explain this!

I walk for 35 minutes outside (roughly at 3mph). I'm currently at 264 and am 5'6. I was checking my heart rate throughout the walk and it was staying in the range of 150-155

Now for the calories estimates:
My ipod was at 301

Myfitnesspal said 296

HRM said a whooping 548!!

Now out of those numbers which one should I be using! *L*

I followed the advice of another lady on here and took the average of the 3 and come out with 381
«1

Replies

  • STACYINOC
    STACYINOC Posts: 75 Member
    I would go with what your HRM says...after all, it's calculating YOUR BPM and it's more specific to you only. Do you have your weight, age, etc. entered in correctly in your HRM settings?
  • boodlelibra
    boodlelibra Posts: 74 Member
    Bump
  • SARgirl
    SARgirl Posts: 572 Member
    Does your HRM have a chest strap? If so then I would go with it's reading.
  • ceannesjourney
    ceannesjourney Posts: 250
    I think you could use any of them...depends on how many of your exercise calories you eat back. I usually try to only eat about half back...
  • emily_can
    emily_can Posts: 24 Member
    I would also stick with what the HRM says. Just be sure the settings for your information are correct.
  • MerBear1985
    MerBear1985 Posts: 131
    I would make sure you have your information entered properly and use that. I actually found that MFP wasn't giving me ENOUGH burned calories when I checked with my HRM...go figure, I guess everyone is different!
  • chachanumber1
    chachanumber1 Posts: 3 Member
    I have a feeling that your HRM isn't set up with your height/weight correctly (make sure it isn't expecting KGs vs LBs). They can be confusing!

    The results calculated with this HR-based burn calculator correlates with your iPod and MFP...

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx
  • HisPathDaily
    HisPathDaily Posts: 672 Member
    First of all, congrats on your 36 lbs :)

    With a walking HR around 150-155 you're still pushing your body pretty hard, and if that's accurate I would go with that. I'll burn about 400 calories in a 30 minute run (doing about 155bpm) ... so while I'm running, you're still pushing your heart to a good aerobic range ...

    Keep using the HRM though ... as you become more fit, the lower that will go ... and thus you'll be burning less and less calories.
  • HealthyWarrior
    HealthyWarrior Posts: 394 Member
    I ALWAYS go with what my HRM says. I feel its the most accurate.
  • Hannah645
    Hannah645 Posts: 75 Member
    Ugh, I feel the same way you do . I'm skeptical of all the different numbers being thrown at me all the time.

    I try to eat more on the days I am very active and less on the days I hang out in sweatpants on the couch. I can't make myself trust the numbers.
  • CyberEd312
    CyberEd312 Posts: 3,536 Member
    Can I ask what brand of HRM you have and does it have a chest strap... I use a Polar FT60 with a chest strap and would not take any other calories burns except for what I get from it...
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    My HRM (I use a Garmin 610 which, supposedly, has a newer and very accurate algorithm) will show anywhere from 450 to 500 cal burned during a half hour run (10 min miles) and my heart rate is lower than what you've recorded (I'm just under 200lbs) so your HRM may not be that far off. (a little OT but my HRM and MFP tend to be within about 10% of each other - my run this morning was 731 cal according to my HRM and IIRC about 780 according to MFP)
  • RoosMommy01
    RoosMommy01 Posts: 88
    Thanks everyone. Yes all my info is definetly entered correctly. I'm a little OCD when it comes to following directions! *L* I double checked myself at least 3 times on the directions.

    This is part of the reasoning on why I never eat back exercising calories. I never know which one is the right number. I put this on as my calories burn this morning and had 4 "friends" email me saying that the HRM was full of it and I wasn't anywhere near that number so now I'm second guessing myself like always since starting this website! :indifferent:
  • ChristyRunStarr
    ChristyRunStarr Posts: 1,600 Member
    Like pretty much everyone else is saying, I'd go with the HRM
  • loridianehood
    loridianehood Posts: 10
    I agree...I always only eat back maybe 50% of calories from exercise...seems to work!!
  • Arleigh7
    Arleigh7 Posts: 150 Member
    Does your HRM allow you to input your age, weight, height, etc? If it does then I would definitely go with that. The bigger you are and the heavier you are the more calories you burn during excercise but programs that estimate your calories burned can only do that if they have your vital statistics.
  • Lize11e
    Lize11e Posts: 419
    I just recently (last week) got my HRM. I was thinking that MFP was over-estimating my calories burned but instead, according to my monitor, it was under-estimating. Also, and this is helpful to ME to see how you are reacting to your HRM, you and I are very close to the same size. I am 5'7" and weigh 268. I have been going with my HRM. I figure you set it up right, it sounds very much like the kind of readings I've been getting. Congrats on doing such a fabulous job!
  • jenluvsushi
    jenluvsushi Posts: 933 Member
    Use your HRM but only count 80% of those calories burned as exercise calories. The reason why is that even if you were sitting still you would be burning calories.
  • teach54
    teach54 Posts: 22 Member
    I'm voting with those who say to check all your settings - age, weight, AND gender.
    I have a relatively inexpensive HRM that gives me my time and average heart rate. Then I go to an online calculator to figure out my calories burned.
    On those occasions where I've forgotten to click on "Female" instead of "Male", i get ridiculously high calorie burns, similar to what you reported. When I enter data correctly, the results are close to MFP's numbers, but usually slightly lower.
  • Quasita
    Quasita Posts: 1,530 Member
    Only things that are more accurate than a properly used HRM is a BodyMedia unit or a gold standard professional test. MFP and other items use averages for people. They assume an average health level and heart rate and give calorie counts based on that. Since most of us are not exactly "average" on here, it can be a little iffy.

    After working with my BM Fit Link, I found that MFP is relatively close for me during some activities, and way off on others. Now I defer to my unit's estimates for off-body activity, and take the numbers directly for on-body activity.

    It can be difficult to gauge calorie burn off of HRM alone, especially when you're bigger. I tend to warn people against swearing they are 100% spot on. All of these are just tools to get an idea as to what you are doing.
  • deejaycee114
    deejaycee114 Posts: 139 Member
    i don't have an HRM but i'm having the same issue with iMapMyRun vs MFP, but here is a website that i use to compare "notes", and it always matches MFP. so i end up logging what MFP suggests. or if it's not in the database, i create my own exercise using the numbers from this web site.

    http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/calories_burned_list.asp
  • JoolieW68
    JoolieW68 Posts: 1,879 Member
    Does your HRM allow you to input your age, weight, height, etc? If it does then I would definitely go with that. The bigger you are and the heavier you are the more calories you burn during excercise but programs that estimate your calories burned can only do that if they have your vital statistics.

    This. My HRM also has an 'activity' setting for how often and how long I exercise in a week, and depending what that number is, along with my age/weight/height/gender, my calories number also changes.
  • dbowman70
    dbowman70 Posts: 1
    You will need to ensure that you are using your HRM provided it has the chest strap; plus watch out for some that have specific calculations for calories based on HR. They are not all created equally.

    My HRM consistently shows my calories less than MFP by 150 to 200 on a 5km run. I have been following the food from MFP and only the calories burned from exercise from my HRM and the right amount of weight is lost each week.
  • MsDivineM
    MsDivineM Posts: 48
    What kind of HRM do you have? Does it have a chest stap? We are about the same weight and i am a few inches shorter and walk every day. Usually 5 miles and at a speed of 3.3MPH. I typically end up burning between 300 - 600 calories for around 100 minute long walk. Depending on the amount of hills I do that day. My heart rate stays in the 130s for most of the walk. Everyone is very different. I tend to have a pretty low heart rate to begin with. I have a polar FT4. Only other thing is, why are your friends being so negitive? They are suppose to be supportive. Its hard enough to stay motivated and stay positive without someone always telling you are wrong!
  • sexikc
    sexikc Posts: 153 Member
    Im glad you posted this...one of my MFP friends was just talkin about this and someone said something about outlandish numbers and the HRM is better when hers is always lower....and yours is higher, interesting...I would likely use my HRM number becasue it should be my specific to what I am doing...but the average is a good idea too...
  • LittleMissRainey
    LittleMissRainey Posts: 440 Member
    I'm 5ft 6in and about 213lbs. On a 50 minute walk, roughly 3.8mph my heart rate is 140-160 the entire way and my HRM says I burn 810-860 calories .

    My heart rate tends to be quite high anyway (at work it's rarely below 70, and I have a desk job) so in any given day I burn 2500-3500 just by existing, before exercise, depending on my stress levels that day lol.

    I think it's entirely possible your HRM is correct and I'd go with that.

    Edit: my HRM has a chest strap, inputted details for height, weight, age, gender etc. And I don't eat all those calories.
  • Chipmaniac
    Chipmaniac Posts: 642 Member
    I would probably record a little less than what your HRM recorded. The reason is that the HRM's formula has to use a model and that model is based on the average human. Heart rate is simply correlated strongly with energy expenditure. People with low basal heart rate or high basal heart rate are going to throw off the calculation.

    For example, now that I'm fit, my HRM reports quite a bit less calories simply because my heart rate is significantly lower than it used to be doing the same exercise. It is true that my body has become more efficient at exertion and thus truly is using less energy, but I don't think the drop in energy expenditure is as dramatic as the HRM claims it is. In your case it may be the opposite with your HRM interpreting low fitness level as high muscular exertion and thus high energy expenditure

    If a person has a weak heart due to a defect etc., they will have a significantly faster heart rate while expending the same amount of energy doing something as a person with a normal heart. Yet, the monitor will record more calories for the person with the dodgy ticker. This is another example of how the HRM can be thrown off. However, for most people it's going to be the most accurate versus other types of estimates.
  • alexis831
    alexis831 Posts: 469 Member
    Does your HRM take into account your height, age, weight and everything? MFP over estimates mine always so I manually enter mine.
  • marrizia
    marrizia Posts: 88 Member
    I always go with what the HRM shows (has a chest strap, and figures age, height, weight, and gender.)
    I wish I burned as many calories as MFP says I do!! The HR monitor always calculates a significantly lower number.
  • marrizia
    marrizia Posts: 88 Member
    BTW, congratulations on your progress!!!

Categories