HRM-says i burn more cals than MFP???

beachygirlk
beachygirlk Posts: 28
in Fitness and Exercise
i'm just curious if this same thing happens to anyone else or if my HRM is completely off. I have a polar ft4 (pink of course :P) and i have my height and weight set exactly. today i walked the to boardwalk in my town from my house, then walked the whole thing, which is a mile each way, then back to my house. my total time was 59 minutes and my HRM is telling me that i burned 367 calories. ??? does these seem way too high to anyone else besides me? mfp is telling me that walking at a speed of 3.5 i would burn 270 calories for an hour. normally i thought MFP was the one who over estimated. seriously confused, please help!!

Replies

  • hauer01
    hauer01 Posts: 516 Member
    I think that it depends on the exercise. I noticed that too, when I got my Polor FT4, the HRM showed way more calories that MFP, particularly on walking. I walk the dogs everyday and was amazed at the difference.

    Some of the other workouts, (circut training, aerobics) I have noticed that MFP was higher than my HRM.

    You are not alone.
  • professorRAT
    professorRAT Posts: 690 Member
    It is very hard to say. HRM's are not super accurate either, and I recall a post referencing a study that showed they are more inaccurate for women. They won't estimate well when doing weight training, but will be a bit better for cardio (where heart rate stays elevated for a while). Your best bet is to play around with what you enter. I use my HRM as a guide and usually adjust calories down. Do this for a while, check your results, and change your adjustment amount accordingly. This has worked well for me.
  • fatcaf69
    fatcaf69 Posts: 4 Member
    I have the same one as you in pink - I trust it implicitly as it has my age, my weight etc but I always then take off the amount of calories I would have burned (BMR) if I had just been sitting down watching tv and then HRM-BMR(hourly.mins( I find that is accurate and have been able to tailor my weight loss by calories food and calories exercise.
  • conidiring
    conidiring Posts: 230 Member
    Yeah, I hear people say that all the time about MFP. I have worn an HRM for all my activities, and my HRM readings are always higher (on everything, usually by a great margin too!) than MFP.
  • alpine1994
    alpine1994 Posts: 1,915 Member
    Hi! I also have the Polar FT4 (and seriously who WOULDN'T get the pink?!) and it's usually higher than what MFP says. The times it's not is when I'm really just dragging myself through the workout. When I really push it, there's a big difference. I think it's pretty accurate because I also know how hard I'm working. I usually burn 325ish cals in the 30 minutes of Ripped in 30, but MFP would tell me 225.
  • bikermike5094
    bikermike5094 Posts: 1,752 Member
    Trust the HRM!!! My FT7 (not pink) is usually lower than mfp but at my age and weight, i'm not pushing it too hard yet as I'm still working my way up to better fitness, so my hrm is always lower than mfp.
  • AmyRhubarb
    AmyRhubarb Posts: 6,890 Member
    My HRM varies as well - sometimes higher, sometimes lower than what MFP says. The HRM has more info on me, so I always go with that. Interesting to see the difference though, isn't it?
  • beachygirlk
    beachygirlk Posts: 28
    for those of you who are saying you trust what the HRM says, are you eating back those exercise calories and still losing weight?
  • Gagaluvr
    Gagaluvr Posts: 73 Member
    I have the pink one too but mine is WAY LOWER than the machine or MFP. Its so sad to see if this is the "real" calorie burn...BLARGGGGG
  • ErinBeth7
    ErinBeth7 Posts: 1,625 Member
    Yeah, I hear people say that all the time about MFP. I have worn an HRM for all my activities, and my HRM readings are always higher (on everything, usually by a great margin too!) than MFP.
    Mine is always way higher as well, especially with running/walking.
  • secretlobster
    secretlobster Posts: 3,566 Member
    367 calories for an hour of walking doesn't sound inaccurate. Most people, at whatever speed, will burn an average of about 100 calories per mile.
  • beth230blue
    beth230blue Posts: 45 Member
    I'd trust your polar. Designed for females, has your height and weight... MFP would just have generic cal burns. I trust mine implicitly....closest to reality
  • FrostyBev
    FrostyBev Posts: 119 Member
    Go with the HRM. MFP doesn't know you're actual effort where your HRM is more likely to register the differences in HR which may translate to higher calorie burns.

    For instance. If I walk on the treadmill at 3.0 mph but max elevation I'm going to burn about 500 calories in an hour. 3.0 MPH on a level surface will only burn around 280ish. (Calorie amounts are estimated.)
  • fatcaf69
    fatcaf69 Posts: 4 Member
    I go to the gym on average now 5 days a week and usually do gym workout and then an evening aerobics - I am eating 1500 calories a day Monday-Friday and on the weekend I just eat low fat and carefully - and my calories burned on exercise are between 1000-1500 a day (enjoying my workout) - I am not eating them back but I know if I want to go out with the girls for a drink or have a treat I have worked hard enough .... I am losing on average 3lbs a week regularly and am now getting pretty fit
  • samiam321123
    samiam321123 Posts: 38 Member
    I have the same one as you in pink - I trust it implicitly as it has my age, my weight etc but I always then take off the amount of calories I would have burned (BMR) if I had just been sitting down watching tv and then HRM-BMR(hourly.mins( I find that is accurate and have been able to tailor my weight loss by calories food and calories exercise.

    I do this too. My BMR works out to about 1 calorie per minute just for normal living functions so I would take amount my polar (not pink) HRM says I burn and reduce it by the amount of minutes I was working out. So if I burn 300 calories in 50 minutes I would enter it as 250.

Categories