I'm not sure if my HRM is giving me the right numbers!

Options
xSilke
xSilke Posts: 31
in Fitness and Exercise
I know how everyone on here is usually "MFP gives higher calorie burn then my HRM does", but for me, it's the other way around.
Today I tested out my new Polar FT4, and did 4 dances that I knew, the average calorie burn for each dance was 35,5 calories. All the 4 dances together were around 19 minutes or so. And my average heart rate was around 130.

Is it possible? Because MFP says I should only have burned around 90 calories or so... (I do admit, when I dance, I DANCE, I give it my all) but it still seems alot...

Replies

  • xSilke
    xSilke Posts: 31
    Options
    BUMP. Anyone...?
    Also I forgot to mention in the first post that for the 4 dances together (19 minutes) I burned 142 calories
  • alexisu96
    alexisu96 Posts: 103 Member
    Options
    MFP over estimates vs. if you go by taking average heart rate per workout and use an online calculator. I use shapesense.com. Others give the same figures. Enter age, height,weight and the figures are waaay lower than MFP.

    I have a HrM and it's frustrating as I realize I have been over estimating my workouts. I am 218 , 39 and for me to burn 600calorie a workout (1hr). I need to have an average pulsh of 160 for those 60 minutes. 160 for one straight hr is very intense. For me that's Running, not walking/jogging, at a good pce.. No walk breaks. Or 1hr step class very intense.

    Again this is basing this just off of HR. IMO, those without a HRM are overestimating burn. I read all the time "walking 30 minutes, burn 300/400).

    Ex. I put in 300lbs ,age 39, pulse 140(imo high for a walk but ar 300 maybe pulse does get up there) ,30 minutes and burn is only 190.

    So either online calculators are wrong or we are often overestimating.

    And thse are gross not net calories burned!
  • alexisu96
    alexisu96 Posts: 103 Member
    Options
    MFP over estimates vs. if you go by taking average heart rate per workout and use an online calculator. I use shapesense.com. Others give the same figures. Enter age, height,weight and the figures are waaay lower than MFP.

    I have a HrM and it's frustrating as I realize I have been over estimating my workouts. I am 218 , 39 and for me to burn 600calorie a workout (1hr). I need to have an average pulsh of 160 for those 60 minutes. 160 for one straight hr is very intense. For me that's Running, not walking/jogging, at a good pce.. No walk breaks. Or 1hr step class very intense.

    Again this is basing this just off of HR. IMO, those without a HRM are overestimating burn. I read all the time "walking 30 minutes, burn 300/400).

    Ex. I put in 300lbs ,age 39, pulse 140(imo high for a walk but ar 300 maybe pulse does get up there) ,30 minutes and burn is only 190.

    So either online calculators are wrong or we are often overestimating.

    And thse are gross not net calories burned!
  • alexisu96
    alexisu96 Posts: 103 Member
    Options
    J

    One more thing. You are already skinny!!!!!! Which means, unfortunately you are burning less then me.


    Ignore this!! Tried to delete. I am now soo confused i entered your weight and shapesense.com shows a higher burn. I was curiuos what your weight vs. Mine would be. Yours is higher. Strange as the moremweigjt the more burn. Or at leat that is how I remember it. Checking other websites.

Categories