and the winner is... HRM? MFP? or MACHINE? join now...

lexlyn14
lexlyn14 Posts: 290 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Ok so today I just got a polar ft4 HRM that will calculate calories burned during exercise...Tomorrow I will see how many calories it says I burned as well as how many calories the machine and MFP says I burned...I will be so curious to see how far off they all are...Of course I will want to believe the highest one but will probably record the lowest one for fear that I am wrong...I will post results tomorrow...which one do you think will be the winner???? Please join and record your calories from MFP...HRM and/or machine and let me know which calories you record...
«1

Replies

  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    The HRM is the most accurate because it's based on your actual stats and your actual HR, not some estimate in a data base or estimate on a machine that only takes into account how far you've gone and how fast. Still, I deduct about 15-20% from my HRM to account for BMR calories that I would have burned just sitting on my *kitten*. I haven't used machine or MFP numbers in ages.
  • RepsnSets
    RepsnSets Posts: 805 Member
    I calculate according to my HRM as it is monitoring my actual heart rate with the chest transmitter. MFP way over calculates cals burnt. Machines are inaccurate cause they are used and abused by everyone at my gym.

    I really like my HRM makes me work harder and reach my goals.
  • Phiasmommy12
    Phiasmommy12 Posts: 4
    I just purchase the Ft4 monitor as well from Amazon!! I get it tomorrow, sooo excited!!
  • MissTattoo
    MissTattoo Posts: 1,203 Member
    HRM. MFP was overestimating my gym workouts by like 500 calories.
  • fanceegirl75
    fanceegirl75 Posts: 620 Member
    If your counting on the machine or MFP you're going to be wayyy off. The best is an HRM with chest strap. You got the Polar so you will be good!
  • julesy_b
    julesy_b Posts: 26 Member
    This is what happened to me today! I have been using mfp for months and started using my polar ft4 today it is so accurate. Bit frustrating though as I thought mfp was near, no way! Not to worry we'll both be right now :)
  • rduhlir
    rduhlir Posts: 3,550 Member
    HRM
  • Zekela
    Zekela Posts: 634 Member
    I like this topic :-)... Overall, HRM is the most accurate since it adjusts for incline and conditions. MFP assumes you are doing exercise with no resistance. For example running: is assumes you are running on a flat with no wind. The treadmil is only accurate ifyou run in the middle of it. Ive used my HRM on a treadmill to test. What I find is that if you run closer to the front of the treadmil, you burn more than what the treadmil states, if you dun towards the back of the treadmil you burn a bit less.
  • waylandcool
    waylandcool Posts: 175 Member
    HRM. MFP is usually lower than my HRM by a decent margin, the excpetion being when my boot camp class does a strength training day.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    meh. Kind of a non-issue for me. When I was new to weight-loss in 2007, I bought a Polar HRM.

    I used it maybe twenty times. It was fun. For about a minute, it was fun. Now it sits on my dressing, collecting dust. Well, that was $100 well-spent /end sarcasm.

    I just use a flat 300 calories if it's about an hour of exercise.

    I used to really believe I could somehow control the exact number of calories in and out. It so doesn't work like that.

    It's miserable for me when I start to believe that. Not possible and not important. But I totally understand your hope that it will be. :flowerforyou:
  • theskinnylist
    theskinnylist Posts: 286 Member
    HRM all the way. I love my Polar FT7.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    It also sits on my dresser Gaah.gif
  • YepLilly
    YepLilly Posts: 129 Member
    HRM is the way to go, it will give you the most accurate reading.
  • SuperSexyDork
    SuperSexyDork Posts: 1,669 Member
    They're all estimates.

    For some things, such as the treadmill or exercise bike the machine may actually be more accurate because it has been rigorously tested based on sound formulas. However, for something such as the elliptical, your HRM may be most accurate.

    As for strength training, HRM are not at all accurate and of course there is no machine telling you what you burnt while doing that.
  • nikkiej2012
    nikkiej2012 Posts: 236 Member
    yeah i use to use THE machine cals but now that i got my HRM i use that...MFP well i think its way off
  • Jonesie1984
    Jonesie1984 Posts: 612 Member
    HRM
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Treadmill if it asks for weight.

    MFP if you have no incline and do the speed indicated.

    HR is not directly tied to calories burned, but as close as you can get without more expensive setup - IF, and again, a big IF, all your stats are setup correctly.

    You're cheaper Polar is missing the VO2max stat, and likely don't have the HRmax stat correct either.

    Test yourself.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
  • shauna121211
    shauna121211 Posts: 575 Member
    They're all estimates.

    For some things, such as the treadmill or exercise bike the machine may actually be more accurate because it has been rigorously tested based on sound formulas. However, for something such as the elliptical, your HRM may be most accurate.

    As for strength training, HRM are not at all accurate and of course there is no machine telling you what you burnt while doing that.

    Why wouldn't HRM be accurate with strength training??? Never heard that before and I don't see why that would be... :ohwell:

    I wouldn't bother with machines or MFP if you want something accurate. Your heart rate, age, weight, height are all recorded in your HRM to give you the most accurate burn. Obviously it's not going to be 100% but it's much better than the other two. I never work out without mine and when I do I feel naked! haha
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Why wouldn't HRM be accurate with strength training??? Never heard that before and I don't see why that would be... :ohwell:

    I wouldn't bother with machines or MFP if you want something accurate. Your heart rate, age, weight, height are all recorded in your HRM to give you the most accurate burn. Obviously it's not going to be 100% but it's much better than the other two. I never work out without mine and when I do I feel naked! haha

    Because the relationship between HR and calories burned is totally based on aerobic activity, steady-state with HR for 2-5 min.

    Lifting is anaerobic, and no where near steady-state.

    It thinks you reached those high HR's through aerobic activity - therefore totally inflated values.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/773451-is-my-hrm-giving-me-incorrect-calorie-burn
  • SuperSexyDork
    SuperSexyDork Posts: 1,669 Member
    Why wouldn't HRM be accurate with strength training??? Never heard that before and I don't see why that would be... :ohwell:

    I wouldn't bother with machines or MFP if you want something accurate. Your heart rate, age, weight, height are all recorded in your HRM to give you the most accurate burn. Obviously it's not going to be 100% but it's much better than the other two. I never work out without mine and when I do I feel naked! haha

    Because the relationship between HR and calories burned is totally based on aerobic activity, steady-state with HR for 2-5 min.

    Lifting is anaerobic, and no where near steady-state.

    It thinks you reached those high HR's through aerobic activity - therefore totally inflated values.

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

    Thank you for explaining that for me.

    If you're strength training and want to count calories burned, you may as well just use MFP's estimate. I think you'll find that the HRM displays a much higher burn for it but it is largely inflated.
  • RepsnSets
    RepsnSets Posts: 805 Member
    You can burn a lot of cals doing weights for upto 24hours thereafter. Logging it is impossible. I tend to up my food intake on those days. Hunger is ravenous on lifting days.
  • Zekela
    Zekela Posts: 634 Member
    It all depends on the person, intensity and the times you stop, start the workout. MFP and the machine will still continue counting the minutes... and that's why I would say HRM. The machine and MFP are assuming that your pace and whatever intensity is maintained for all of the time you work out.
  • lexlyn14
    lexlyn14 Posts: 290 Member
    OKAY...so here are the results...running 42 minutes...HRM=336 calories...MFP=384 and the machine =568

    eliptical 20 minutes...HRM=150 calories...MFP=183...and the machine=200

    kickbox 25 minutes...HRM=170calories...MFP=257

    circuit training 22 minutes HRM=120...MFP=176


    So...The machines calorie read out is over inflated...and now I hate them...

    MFP calorie read out are also over inflated...and I am annoyed at them

    HRM is probably the correct calorie read out...and I hate that damn watch and chest strap for being so stingy with the calories...

    Well at least I know now to go by the HRM so I don't over eat calories I have not really burned...LESSON LEARNED!!!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    OKAY...so here are the results...running 42 minutes...HRM=336 calories...MFP=384 and the machine =568

    So...The machines calorie read out is over inflated...and now I hate them...

    Did you run flat the exact pace that MFP had as a description?

    That does mean your HRM is at least pretty accurate right now - should test from time to time.

    Did you input your weight into the treadmill?
    And for running calcs, were you between 5 to 6.3 mph, at incline no greater than 5%?

    And does your known pace and incline result in same calories here?

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    Because that is very odd the machine was off from MFP if the pace matched the description.
  • lexlyn14
    lexlyn14 Posts: 290 Member
    OKAY...so here are the results...running 42 minutes...HRM=336 calories...MFP=384 and the machine =568

    So...The machines calorie read out is over inflated...and now I hate them...

    Did you run flat the exact pace that MFP had as a description?

    That does mean your HRM is at least pretty accurate right now - should test from time to time.

    Did you input your weight into the treadmill?
    And for running calcs, were you between 5 to 6.3 mph, at incline no greater than 5%?

    And does your known pace and incline result in same calories here?

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    Because that is very odd the machine was off from MFP if the pace matched the description.
  • lexlyn14
    lexlyn14 Posts: 290 Member
    OKAY...so here are the results...running 42 minutes...HRM=336 calories...MFP=384 and the machine =568

    So...The machines calorie read out is over inflated...and now I hate them...

    Did you run flat the exact pace that MFP had as a description?

    That does mean your HRM is at least pretty accurate right now - should test from time to time.

    Did you input your weight into the treadmill?
    And for running calcs, were you between 5 to 6.3 mph, at incline no greater than 5%?

    And does your known pace and incline result in same calories here?

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    Because that is very odd the machine was off from MFP if the pace matched the description.


    I ran on my treadmill exactly as I put it in for MFP...5.2 mph...no incline...and machine said 568...MFP said 384 and my HRM said 336...
    So MFP was 48 calories over and the machine was 232 over...
    But my treadmill does not make me put in my height or weight or anything...
  • woodsy0912
    woodsy0912 Posts: 323
    I always go by my HRM now. Although I never thought to deduct a percent for BMR...

    The ellipticals at my gym are the worst for over inflation, even with height/ weight/ age input. But the treadmills and stair climbers also overestimate me. MFP numbers are all over the place and some even manage to make me laugh.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    OKAY...so here are the results...running 42 minutes...HRM=336 calories...MFP=384 and the machine =568

    So...The machines calorie read out is over inflated...and now I hate them...

    Did you run flat the exact pace that MFP had as a description?

    That does mean your HRM is at least pretty accurate right now - should test from time to time.

    Did you input your weight into the treadmill?
    And for running calcs, were you between 5 to 6.3 mph, at incline no greater than 5%?

    And does your known pace and incline result in same calories here?

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    Because that is very odd the machine was off from MFP if the pace matched the description.


    I ran on my treadmill exactly as I put it in for MFP...5.2 mph...no incline...and machine said 568...MFP said 384 and my HRM said 336...
    So MFP was 48 calories over and the machine was 232 over...
    But my treadmill does not make me put in my height or weight or anything...

    But. The 336 is pretty damn close...and really close enough for weight loss purposes. All the calculators use the same algorithms. You didn't go from a full stop to 5.2 MPH for the entire time, so your heartrate had to do some catching up....

    Thing is, HRMs are not a necessary part of weight loss. They aren't effective with strength training - they aren't designed for that type of activity, and they are only effective once you are in the Aerobic Zone and when you have input your VO2Max.

    So for people wanting to find the "exact" number - relax. There isn't one. Just pick a source and use it. It's not a perfect science. It's a range.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I ran on my treadmill exactly as I put it in for MFP...5.2 mph...no incline...and machine said 568...MFP said 384 and my HRM said 336...
    So MFP was 48 calories over and the machine was 232 over...
    But my treadmill does not make me put in my height or weight or anything...

    Bad treadmill test then if no input for weight.

    Weight and pace, that's all you need. Well, and incline.
    Weight, pace, and incline, that's all you need. Well, and time.
    Weight, pace, incline, and time, that's all you need...... ya. And doing the workout.

    So for it to estimate that high, it's default weight must be pretty high. I'd ask the gym about that.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I ran on my treadmill exactly as I put it in for MFP...5.2 mph...no incline...and machine said 568...MFP said 384 and my HRM said 336...
    So MFP was 48 calories over and the machine was 232 over...
    But my treadmill does not make me put in my height or weight or anything...

    But. The 336 is pretty damn close...and really close enough for weight loss purposes. All the calculators use the same algorithms. You didn't go from a full stop to 5.2 MPH for the entire time, so your heartrate had to do some catching up....

    Thing is, HRMs are not a necessary part of weight loss. They aren't effective with strength training - they aren't designed for that type of activity, and they are only effective once you are in the Aerobic Zone and when you have input your VO2Max.

    So for people wanting to find the "exact" number - relax. There isn't one. Just pick a source and use it. It's not a perfect science. It's a range.

    Exactly.

    Now, good news - this does mean your HRM is great tool for you because it is estimating really well, because MFP is going to be more accurate for that type of test. So as you use it on other exercise that is valid as mentioned above, pretty good estimate.

Categories