HRM's were you suprised by cals burned?

Jozie_
Jozie_ Posts: 61 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Did you notice a big difference in cals estimated by MFP/Gym machines and the cals burned on your HRM? And did your HRM give you a higher or lower estimate?

Replies

  • daciaschoolfield
    daciaschoolfield Posts: 8
    I find my heart rate monitor to be much more accurate. Based on what quantifiable data? None really (as I haven't ever spent a lot of time comparing what a machine says I've burned in calories compared against what my HRM says).

    However, I do like the fact that my HRM is tracking against my physical expenditure, while also factoring in my height, weight, sex, etc.; whereas the counters on the machines themselves aren't reflective of ME per se, but are reflective of some 'collective average'.

    Also, too, sometimes physical exertion is all in the mind. You can feel like you are giving it your all during a workout, but then check your HRM only find you are at some mid-level range. For me, it's a constant reminder of when to push harder, and when to pull back a bit.

    I am personally a huge fan of the HRM. But, I'm also a data geek.
  • Xiaolongbao
    Xiaolongbao Posts: 854 Member
    Personally I find MFP estimates too generous. My HRM is surprisingly close to what the gym machines predict. Since I can't actually programme them properly (because all the instructions are in Japanese) I was pretty surprised to find that. I'd like to think it's because I'm average sized for a Japanese person but unless they set up their machines to work for sumo wrestlers then I'm sad to say that's not likely. I've decided that the machines probably over estimate calories for your average Japanese and just happen to be accurate for someone of my weight.
  • mjkpe
    mjkpe Posts: 98 Member
    MFP was way over what my Polar FT7 calculated. When I do see lower levels compared to others on MFP for the same times it pushes me.
  • jennmodugno
    jennmodugno Posts: 363 Member
    Honestly, for my size and the exercises I do, I found MFP to be pretty close to what my HRM tells me. I still use my HRM everywhere because I do plenty of things that aren't in the database - like Just Dance! - but if I forget it I feel pretty confident about adding it from MFP's database, so long as I realize it's not a hard and fast number. I do find my HRM gives me a higher number for most things, though only by a little, and I attribute that to how hard I work during my workouts.
  • shandi_b
    shandi_b Posts: 153 Member
    My HRM, depending on the activity, is nearly always higher than what MFP estimates. e.g. my lunchtime leisurely paced walks show about 400-500 cals burnt whereas MFP will give me about 260 for the same 55 mins of activity.
    I did read somewhere that some HRM show the total calories burnt including BMR. Whereas MFP only gives you the calories burnt (minus what you would normally burn through BMR)......................
    I am data geek too so it would be good to know for sure which one is more accurate, especially on the days that I eat back my calories. :)
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    The cheaper Polar FT7 with no VO2max stat really under-estimates my activity, both compared to machine, MFP, and more accurate than HRM self test.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/773451-is-my-hrm-giving-me-incorrect-calorie-burn

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study


    Oh, the treadmills only need your weight, because the energy to move so much mass against gravity has no bearing on gender or age.

    That 5 lb weight on the ground takes the same amount of energy to break it free from gravity and lift it no matter who you are. May be easier or hard, but same calories burned.
  • rolandvarriale
    rolandvarriale Posts: 12
    When I was just starting out doing cardio I found that the MFP cals were a little lower or equal to what my FT7 was giving me. As I get in better shape I am seeing that even if I increase my speed and resistance on the elliptical my calories are getting lower and lower. I'm pretty sure there is another factor, such as power, that isn't really accounted for, but I use the lowered calories nonetheless.

    hth
  • DPernet
    DPernet Posts: 481 Member
    Nope, wasn't surprised at all. I knew from reading the boards that MFP over-estimates the calories. With mine, even compared to the gym machines there's a 25% difference most times.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    When I was just starting out doing cardio I found that the MFP cals were a little lower or equal to what my FT7 was giving me. As I get in better shape I am seeing that even if I increase my speed and resistance on the elliptical my calories are getting lower and lower. I'm pretty sure there is another factor, such as power, that isn't really accounted for, but I use the lowered calories nonetheless.

    hth

    I have just been testing this problem actually.

    FT7 has no VO2max stat to use or for you to enter, therefore it is calculating a rough estimate. It is based on age and BMI.

    It figures if your BMI is bad, your fitness level is bad. Therefore at a given HR, your calorie burn is lower.

    But as you get fit, the above assumption is not true, and if fit and still reaching that HR, you are burning more calories.

    My first test using 2 Polars, FT7 and RS300X which has the VO2max stat, actually a self-test to estimate it too, but I have a tested value.

    54 min spin class - avg HR 143 (66% of max, so light effort, just barely into Aerobic zone actually).
    Both HRM's with same gender, age, weight, height, HRmax (also tested value).
    The RS300X had extra stat of VO2max.

    FT7 - 595
    RS300X - 739

    144 calorie underestimate on cheaper Polar FT7, for mere 54 min at lighter effort. Easily 200 under on harder efforts. That's not a good underestimate when you already have a reasonable deficit.

    But I tweaked the FT7 values hoping it will estimate the correct VO2max stat, I got pretty close on today's test.
    58 min spin class - avg HR 154 (73% of max).
    Age lowered by 24 years, and height increased by 11 inches on the FT7. Same stats everywhere else.

    FT7 - 982
    RS300X - 899

    So only 83 over. And if I had put the age where I really meant to, probably would have narrowed that margin too.

    If interested in testing and tweaking your FT7, let me know.

Categories