Accuracy check - high/low?

athena392
athena392 Posts: 9
edited January 2 in Fitness and Exercise
I did a one mile walk at 5mph (12 minutes). My HRM gave me a reading of 73 cals burned. Does that sound right? MFP estimates 179 for the same activity. I'm 250lb and 5'2" for reference.

Replies

  • athena392
    athena392 Posts: 9
    Bump
  • leesehm
    leesehm Posts: 117
    hrm are supposed to be more accurate than mfp but thats just what iv heard
  • janemem
    janemem Posts: 575 Member
    I'm 5' 4" and 107lb. Yesterday I did a 7 mile walk in 105 minutes (4mph), my HRM calculated 429 calories burned, MFP gave me 425 so not really much difference between the two.
    I'd say 100+ calories is a big difference but MFP does consistently mirror (near enough) my HRM.
    Are the settings on your HRM correct?
  • Barberini
    Barberini Posts: 140 Member
    I did a one mile walk at 5mph (12 minutes). My HRM gave me a reading of 73 cals burned. Does that sound right? MFP estimates 179 for the same activity. I'm 250lb and 5'2" for reference.

    What was your average HR according to your HRM? You can plug that into a heart rate based calorie calculator for another estimate to compare it with, to see which is more likely to be accurate. Just google "heart rate based calorie calculator".
  • vtmoon
    vtmoon Posts: 3,436 Member
    MFP is closer to what it should be, does the HRM have your weight inputted in it? or is it still at factory default? cause that sounds low for the distance.

    Also 5 mph is rather a very fast walk more like speed walking, did it feel like you were speed walking? cause might be something going wrong with the HRM. What kind of HRM is it?
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    I did a one mile walk at 5mph (12 minutes). My HRM gave me a reading of 73 cals burned. Does that sound right? MFP estimates 179 for the same activity. I'm 250lb and 5'2" for reference.

    If you put down 12 minutes for your time, MFP assumed that you were running, not walking. There is no standard equation to estimate calories for walking @ 5 mph.

    But I doubt your HRM estimate is accurate either. 73 calories is only 365 per hour and your weight is 113 kg. The calorie burn on your HRM is something you would see walking 3.0 mph, not 5.0 mph.

    So your HRM is not set up properly, the HRM is not very accurate, you walked less than 1 mile, or you are taking some type of medication that blunts your HR response. The numbers just don't add up.
  • rileamoyer
    rileamoyer Posts: 2,412 Member
    check and see if your HRM is one that requires frequent readings during the exercise. Some wrist styles do. Otherwise the algorythm calculates solely on your resting heart rate.
  • athena392
    athena392 Posts: 9
    Thank you for the replies. I've checked my settings and they're correct. My weight, height, age, sex, etc were entered. My max heart rate was set to 199 by default.

    My average HR was 132 with a max of 147. I was in "fat burn" zone for 7 minutes and "fitness" for 5.

    I took the suggestion above and used this: http://www.easycalculation.com/health/heart-rate-calorie-burn.php and it gave me a reading of 79.

    It was speed walking. I walk/jog often so it's not a difficult workout.

    It's the Polar FT7 btw.
  • athena392
    athena392 Posts: 9
    Bump
  • athena392
    athena392 Posts: 9
    I did two miles at the same pace today and got a lower reading... 137 calories in 24 minutes. The first mile gave me around 68 burned. 129 average HR, 151 maximum. My endurance is pretty high when it comes to walking and jogging, could that explain the low amount burned?
  • vtmoon
    vtmoon Posts: 3,436 Member
    I did two miles at the same pace today and got a lower reading... 137 calories in 24 minutes. The first mile gave me around 68 burned. 129 average HR, 151 maximum. My endurance is pretty high when it comes to walking and jogging, could that explain the low amount burned?

    that is hard to tell without figuring out the equation your heart rate monitor is using, a lot tend to use distance and time with out factoring in HR, while some do factor it in. Sounds like yours is using distance and time doing the activity as the measure.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories