HRM vs MFP database.......why so close and than so far?

Out of experience, I'm incredulous about the HRM figure. 445 cals for 21 min of walking (2.5 mph) sounds very unlikely, that would be more than 1270 cals per hour. I know no activity that burns that much energy, the highest values per hour are around the 600-700 mark, and walking is not a high-calorie burning activity.

Granted this depends on weight and may be different for me than you, but I think not by as much.

The HRM estimates calories based on your heart rate and other paramters ( age, weight). So maybe your heart rate reading was especially high because it was still elevated after the bicycle, but Stil....

I go with karahjoy, maybe the HRM didn't properly reset between activities.

Ok so Im with these guys. I use my ft7 between 3 and 4 hours a day - my HRM's is the only number I trust generally - everything else is just an estimate in my eyes. For me, MFP cals are always high, and to use the ones you get from the machines you use? Those are waaaaay outta line (usually)

There could be some merit to your walk being so high due to riding the bike first (an elevated HR tends to stay elevated). Or possibly there is some error in calculation on the walk (400 plus cals for that walk IS really high).

Best advice from me is make sure your HRM is working properly, use it regularly, and TRUST it.

HRM is the most accurate way of counting cals that I know of, hands down.

MFP can only guesstimate on an average person....it may know your weight, height and age but not sure if it actually takes those into consideration on the calculator because whoever entered it in the database, unless its from your personal exercises, I would imagine is just entering an average burn for a "typical" person. I don't know what "typical" looks like for the men's side but for women, most calculators I've seen are normed on a 25 year old, 5'7"ish, 150 lb. woman and I am none of the above or even close so I hardly trust their calculations as accurate for me. In addition, they do not take into account your fitness level or exertion making the calculations even more suspect. I do not own an HRM so am not really all that familiar with how it works, but in my opinion, any tool that takes more of your personal data into account is going to give a more accurate estimate of your calorie burn than a generic calculation. Nothing is going to be 100% perfect so you just have to pick one tool to trust and go with whatever it says rather than obsessing over whether it is spot on....because none of them ever will be. Since I don't have an HRM, I take my pulse several times during a workout, take an average and plug it into the heart-rate based calorie burn calculator at shapesense.com which takes into consideration my actual age, weight, VO2max and average heart rate, along with exercise duration. In my opinion, the guesstimate is good enough because it just gives me a rough idea of how much I can eat and still lose and I usually don't come anywhere close to going over because in spite of the allowances they give me for exercise, I know from personal experience and experimentation that even with workouts, I can't go over about 1400 without starting to gain again. Just the way my body works no matter what anyone says. So that is my two cents worth on explaining the discrepancies....

I use the polar bluetooth HRM that links to my iPhone. Its the band like you would use with the FT4 but just not locked to a watch. I have used the Polar app and am currently using digifit. They are nearly the same as far as calories showed burned so I know its not the software with a wierd algorithem. But what trips me out is its so close on the bike and so far apart on the walking. I figure if its off, it should be way off and then I can factor that in. But with numbers flying all over, its hard to find a factor to work with.

Be aware that not all apps using the Polar Bluetooth HRM actually calculate using the heart rate. I also have a Polar Bluetooth, and the first app I tried did not calculate using HRM. I could do 30 minutes running or sitting on the couch, and it would show exactly the same thing. I was just plugging the time in and spitting out a number. Might want to check to be sure your app works correctly with the Bluetooth HRM. I currently use SportsTracker Pro.

oh ok. Lets start this again.

the device is the bluetooth polar to my phone. Each activity is logged in its own log. It is not continuous. My stats are 378 lbs and 5'10" male

So here is the stationary bike - big spike was the push in the final k

Hi I use a polar H7 and Digifit too. For me, Digifit gives a much lower calorie burn estimate than MFP, Endomondo and a lot of other sources I looked at. I do trust the estimate though because it seems to match my actual exertion and real world results. I have done quite a bit of research and have tried my best to make sure all my settings were correct or close to correct. The settings include: height, weight, age, gender, body fat percent (though I don't think Digifit uses it as a factor), resting heart rate, maximum heart rate, and vo2max. I don't know my true max heart rate and vo2max but have done tests that estimate it and I opted to purchase the digifit assessments. I am pretty happy with the assessments, I did the more advanced assessments to estimate max heart rate and custom zones. My heart rate tends to be low compared to the standard numbers for my stats and doing this made my zones match my actual exertion.

I did ask what factors in and was told the total includes BMR and the activity type, your stats, heart rat during workout compared to max heart rate, and vo2max or fitness level rating are factors. Your numbers sound high, 400-and something for a mile sounds kind of high, but you have a much higher BMR than I do and will therefore burn a lot more calories. From the images you posted it looks like both were moderate aerobic workouts, so my guess is your BMR was the factor. I don't know whether MFP's estimates include BMR. I would suggest checking what it has for your VO2max and fitness level to make sure it isn't assuming a very high fitness level (unless you are very fit). And make sure your profile is correct.

Here is a blog entry from the Digifit site that describes their calorie burn estimates: http://blog.digifit.com/2013/03/counting-calories-digifit/

Since you don't eat most of your exercise calories it is probably fine. And you will likely see the calorie burn decrease with your weight (since your estimated BMR will then decrease)

More data can only help here right?

Yep. I have to stand ashamed and publicly announce that I can't calculate. A fairly high-intensity exercise that I'm trying to get better at these days is rope jumping. The other day 5:15 minutes at average HR 178 = 70 calories according to the HRM; that's not 1333 per hour as I wrote, that's more like 800. Today I broke the 10 min mark at average HR 175, and it said 133 cals, almost exactly double for almost exactly the double time, and still almost 800 per hour.

So I'm embarassed but my world view is back to normal -- around 700-800-ish is the upper limit for calorie consumption per hour for any half way sustainable activity. Modify this of course by age, weight, fitness level, and maybe there are some really really strenuous activities out there and some really. Really fit people who can do them for a decent length of time... But for everyday calorie calculations for normal people, 600-800 as a max is a good rule of thumb.

Maybe your Polar makes the same mistake I made? I calculated 100 minutes in an hour when it has only 60.

I have a Garmin fr60 had it for about 6 years been on M.F.P. for about about that long never trust mfp always trust the heart rate monitor they knows best and make sure all your profile stuff is right on heart rate monitor too are weight resting heart rate make sure all that is right (:

Very nice interface I may get one of these to play with .