MFP inflated calorie compared to HRM?

Options
rachpetersen
rachpetersen Posts: 265 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Does anyone else find that the calories lost during exercise are quite inflated compared to what you get on your HRM? I am finding that the MFP numbers are at least double what I burn on my personal HRM. Am I the only one. I give it all I got and other people seem to be burning several hundred calories more than me doing even less intense exercise. If others are also experiencing this let me know so I know I'm not alone and that I'm not weak sauce haha! thanks!
«1

Replies

  • CmeATtheGym
    CmeATtheGym Posts: 26 Member
    Options
    I am having the same experience. I just purchased a Polar ft40. I was also wondering if both the gym equipement and Mfp are off. If I'm lucky, I can get around 250 calories for strength training and about 350 for cardio in 60 mins each. Now, I am still very overweight and clearly not as fit as I thought I was. When I compare Calories burned for my age , height etc on Sparkspeople , they come up with numbers closer to what I achieve.
    Either way . I am only using my HRM numbers now. Right or wrong it is a fantastic tool to help better your experience.
  • kg4ulu
    kg4ulu Posts: 39 Member
    Options
    The gym machines and the MFP lists are inflated. They can't account for intensity, etc I use my HRM for all my calories burned. I too have a Polar.
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Options
    Your HRM is going to be the most accurate but just note that it won't be for weight lifting because your HR usually doesn't get high enough to make the algorithms work properly so you get exaggerated numbers.
  • mystarwillshine
    mystarwillshine Posts: 21 Member
    Options
    If I think the calorie count is off, I'll check the food product itself. I've found that there are so many listings of the same food on MFP, and the nutrition information is so different, it's better to try and look at the package. I don't trust any of the gym equipment for calories, heart rate, etc. They're never right! :)
  • airangel59
    airangel59 Posts: 1,887 Member
    Options
    Yep...mines about half (Polar FT7) than the stuff posted here and on RunKeeper as well as my bike's console. Drives me nuts as both those are closer to each other than my HRM is, but my HRM has my height/weight/HR calculated so I just deal with the discrepancies and use what I get from Polar.
  • clarkeje1
    clarkeje1 Posts: 1,638 Member
    Options
    I actually have to opposite problem. I burn more calories with my HRM typically than MFP gives me.
  • carfamily08
    carfamily08 Posts: 179
    Options
    Mine are pretty even so far. I've only had my HRM for a week but I was expecting HUGE differences from everything I've heard. MFP overestimates a tad for my Jillian Michaels (HRM has me burning 200-205, MFP says 213), but it was under by a bit for my Leslie Sansone walk at home stuff.
  • rfuchs
    rfuchs Posts: 55 Member
    Options
    I think the calories burned during exercise as calculated by MFP are over by at least 20%.
  • myriddian
    myriddian Posts: 186 Member
    Options
    I have also found this, With all the hoo ha- lately about the polar being off also made me wonder but I've made my peace with it now if I'm burning lower then that's fine by me means I'm not eating additional cals for nothing!
  • FindingSamMon
    FindingSamMon Posts: 825 Member
    Options
    I actually have to opposite problem. I burn more calories with my HRM typically than MFP gives me.

    ^This...I also find gym machines under estimate my burn.
  • cmcmommy
    cmcmommy Posts: 197 Member
    Options
    Just got my polar FT7 this week and was surprised how far off they are gyn equipment was off and MFP was really off Just glad I normally dont eat exercise calorie s back
  • LavenderBouquet
    LavenderBouquet Posts: 736 Member
    Options
    I actually have to opposite problem. I burn more calories with my HRM typically than MFP gives me.

    Same here!
  • katevarner
    katevarner Posts: 884 Member
    Options
    Way over for me, but I think the problem is that MFP doesn't account for as many individualities as there are, and let's face it, it's free, so it's not going to be perfect. Use your HRM. I have a BodyMedia Fit and use those numbers for the most part, altho I allow Endomodo to upload my walks. Sometimes I tweak those calories based on my BMF if they are way off.

    That said, it's all really a guess. Nothing is 100% accurate. See how your weight loss progresses and alter your plan as needed to get the results you want.
  • Ploogy
    Ploogy Posts: 115 Member
    Options
    Same here. I just shave off 10% of my HRM since We burn anywhere from 1 to 2 cals at rest depending on our metabolic rate anyway, which will be double counted if not taken out.
    I actually have to opposite problem. I burn more calories with my HRM typically than MFP gives me.

    Same here!
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Options
    Yes, MFP seems pretty generous. That's why I never eat all of my exercise calories back. I eat 0 to half. I let my hunger be my guide. If I'm hungry, I eat but I almost am never hungry enough to eat more than half of them back.
  • michellekicks
    michellekicks Posts: 3,624 Member
    Options
    I actually have to opposite problem. I burn more calories with my HRM typically than MFP gives me.

    ^This...I also find gym machines under estimate my burn.

    This is true for me too.
  • SARgirl
    SARgirl Posts: 572 Member
    Options
    I have found them to be pretty similar for me.
  • jade2112
    jade2112 Posts: 272 Member
    Options
    What the heck is HRM?
  • Maximumresults
    Maximumresults Posts: 175
    Options
    I just workout and eat right
  • mystarwillshine
    mystarwillshine Posts: 21 Member
    Options
    Heart Rate Monitor

Categories