Need help with MFP exercise calories vs. Polar ft4m

Options
TheFinalThird
TheFinalThird Posts: 315 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I need help with a huge difference between MFP exercise calories and those stated on my new polar ft4m.

I am 390 pounds and 6'2". Male, age 51.
I walked 4.35 miles (according to gmap-pedometer) in 77 minutes (according to the polar ft4m) today.
I did it at an average rate of 3.4 miles per hour.
In order to reach an average of 3.4 mph (because MFP only has entries for 3.0 mph and 3.5 mph) I entered 62 out of the 77 minutes at 3.5 mph, and the remaining 15 minutes out of the 77 minutes at 3.0 mph. That approximates a blended rate of 3.4 mph.

MFP said the 62 minutes at 3.5 mph burned 695 calories and the 15 minutes at 3.0 mph burned 146 calories, for a total 77 minute burn of 841 calories.

My polar ft4m said I burned 640 calories for the same 77 minutes.

That is a HUGE variance. 201 calories difference in a 77 minute workout. Which is right? Or is there even a right?

Replies

  • Daniloveshockey94
    Daniloveshockey94 Posts: 348 Member
    Options
    Your HRM is correct!
  • LittleMissNerdy
    LittleMissNerdy Posts: 792 Member
    Options
    HRM

    And I think you could create your own work out, that way you don't need to split it up.
  • pauladick
    pauladick Posts: 85 Member
    Options
    I know when I got my polar I was like gutted with the real burn lol but at least it's correct especially if u want to eat your cals back
  • HelenDootson
    HelenDootson Posts: 443 Member
    Options
    Oh, Scott :( I have a nasty feeling that the HRM is accurate - it has been discussed many times on the forums that MFP over stated exercise calories
  • T1mH
    T1mH Posts: 568 Member
    Options
    The HRM is probably closer. When you put it into MFP create your own exercise. Call it something like "walking HRM", unless your using MFP to keep track of more details like how fast and far you went. I would recommend using another app for that level of detail or whatever software is recommended by Polar to log the details of your workouts. Then just use that entry for logging future workouts by editing the minutes and calories to match the workout.
  • Scarlett_S
    Scarlett_S Posts: 467 Member
    Options
    In my opinion, MFP overestimates calories burned on pretty much everything. I wore a bodybugg for a long time and MFP was always higher than what the bodybugg estimated.
  • josiereside
    josiereside Posts: 720 Member
    Options
    Yep what they all said above... go with the HRM. I was comparing my HRM to the MFP calcs and HRM was lower... also lower than what the cardio machines gives although that varies
  • RunMyOregonBunsOff
    RunMyOregonBunsOff Posts: 862 Member
    Options
    At one time the MFP might have been closer but you have been pushing yourself walking for long enough now that it probably takes more work to get your heart rate up to the level it once was. You may find on days that you have a cold or something and are having a harder time breathing as well that you burn more cal. I have found that at least. Actually when I went to my doctor last time my BP was lower (which it was fine before) presumably from running. You are getting healthier and MFP is too generous with most exercises.
  • lik_11
    lik_11 Posts: 433 Member
    Options
    when in doubt, go with the lower. :( I rarely use MFP estimates, anymore... solely going with HRM. Once you input the cals burned in MFP enough times, the website starts to give you a comparable calorie estimate to the HRMs when you change your minutes under "frequently used" exercises.
  • kdub67
    kdub67 Posts: 181 Member
    Options
    Yeah, I hate to say it but I think the HRM is more accurate. I've heard so many people say that MFP overestimates exercise calories, so it's great that you got the Polar, even though it's a bummer that it's lower:( I was sad to notice that as I lost weight my burn on my HRM was lower for the same exact exercise (which means less food that I can eat to stay within calorie range, argh)...I do love my Polar FT4, though!
  • mangojh2
    mangojh2 Posts: 175 Member
    Options
    MFP has always grossly over-estimated my calories burned. Sometimes it even doubles them! Go with your HRM.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Polar HRMs are known to underestimate calories --both for males and at lower exercise intensities. MFP suffers because you can't just enter your average speed and calculate directly. However, the equation for walking is relatively simple and accurate.

    So in this case your actual number is likely closer to the MFP number, although a lot of other MFP numbers are way off.
  • aswearingen22
    aswearingen22 Posts: 271 Member
    Options
    Definitely go with your HRM.
  • tubaman58
    tubaman58 Posts: 151
    Options
    Go with the HRM, some exercises in particular on MFP register too high on calories
    :smile:
    I need help with a huge difference between MFP exercise calories and those stated on my new polar ft4m.

    I am 390 pounds and 6'2". Male, age 51.
    I walked 4.35 miles (according to gmap-pedometer) in 77 minutes (according to the polar ft4m) today.
    I did it at an average rate of 3.4 miles per hour.
    In order to reach an average of 3.4 mph (because MFP only has entries for 3.0 mph and 3.5 mph) I entered 62 out of the 77 minutes at 3.5 mph, and the remaining 15 minutes out of the 77 minutes at 3.0 mph. That approximates a blended rate of 3.4 mph.

    MFP said the 62 minutes at 3.5 mph burned 695 calories and the 15 minutes at 3.0 mph burned 146 calories, for a total 77 minute burn of 841 calories.

    My polar ft4m said I burned 640 calories for the same 77 minutes.

    That is a HUGE variance. 201 calories difference in a 77 minute workout. Which is right? Or is there even a right?
  • likemeinvisible
    likemeinvisible Posts: 309
    Options
    Polar HRMs are known to underestimate calories --both for males and at lower exercise intensities. MFP suffers because you can't just enter your average speed and calculate directly. However, the equation for walking is relatively simple and accurate.

    So in this case your actual number is likely closer to the MFP number, although a lot of other MFP numbers are way off.

    This is the correct answer. Your hrm could be wrong because it will not register any work done when HR is too low. Mine won't log anything when under 100bpm.
    Burn when walking depends on weight carried over a distance. A 150 lbs person will burn 65 cal per mile.
    You burned 4.35 x 65 x 390/150 = 735.15 calories.
  • GemskiB
    GemskiB Posts: 95 Member
    Options
    I just have a regular polar ft4 and for some things it's lower than MFP but for others much higher. I use the FT4 for classes and gym workouts, and justlog walking on MFP. Horses for courses, it will all balance in the long run :-)

Categories