Equipment vs. Heart Rate Monitor vs. MFP: Calories burned?

ackdyolen
ackdyolen Posts: 15 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I typically get three VERY different numbers regarding how many calories I've burned during a workout. For example, today, I did a 3.5 mph walk at a 5.0 incline on the treadmill for 45 minutes. The treadmill said I burned like 250 calories. MFP says 312, and my HRM says 569!! (I have a chest strap HRM so it's constantly monitoring). I don't tend to believe the treadmill because it doesn't know my height, weight, gender, or age. But the HRM and MFP both have that information. As much as I'd love to believe I burned 569 calories, it seems too good to be true. What do you use?

PS -- I maintained an average heart rate in the 140's during my walk, which is about 75% of my MHR. Not sure if that makes a difference.....

Replies

  • evgenythe2nd
    evgenythe2nd Posts: 36 Member
    HRM is the worst. since a better trained heart will be able to beat slower to perform same excercise.
  • evgenythe2nd
    evgenythe2nd Posts: 36 Member
    id go with the machine, since machine calculates calories based on watts(actual energy produced)

    inb4 haters and cardiobunnies.
  • cassienoe
    cassienoe Posts: 126 Member
    bump to follow...I have always been told that HRMs are the most accurate so that is what I tend to go off of. That's why I bought it. Always heard the machines are the most inaccurate.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    No way to know for sure without knowing the formulas each use.

    The treadmill knows the activity and thus should know the associated workload, which is a big advantage. But if it doesn't know your weight, then that's a huge disadvantage. The HRM is exactly the opposite.

    Does the HRM know your max HR? If so, I'd probably assume that the HRM is more accurate, but it's really only a guess.

    According to your numbers, you burned 12.6cals per minute, which is pretty high, especially for walking. But you're heavier, so that'll increase the burn rate.

    Your best bet is to pick 1 source for calorie burns and use that source exclusively for a month. Then compare your actual results with your expected results. If they aren't fairly close, then tweak things as necessary.
  • MzManiak
    MzManiak Posts: 1,361 Member
    I would ensure your stats are entered correctly in the HRM. It's very easy to transpose a number or enter height in inches when it's asking for feet, etc... You should be able to trust a HRM, especially for steady-state cardio, right?

    Otherwise, I guess I'd go by MFP numbers, personally. I know people say it over estimates... but it's always been right around the same estimate as my Fitbit and HRM....
  • ackdyolen
    ackdyolen Posts: 15 Member
    Does the HRM know your max HR? If so, I'd probably assume that the HRM is more accurate, but it's really only a guess.

    According to your numbers, you burned 12.6cals per minute, which is pretty high, especially for walking. But you're heavier, so that'll increase the burn rate.

    Your best bet is to pick 1 source for calorie burns and use that source exclusively for a month. Then compare your actual results with your expected results. If they aren't fairly close, then tweak things as necessary.

    Yes, the HRM knows my MHR (it has my age, weight, height, and gender and it uses the 220-age to calculate MHR). And like someone else said, I'd always heard the machines were inaccurate and the HRM's were the most accurate if the data is entered accurately. My problem with picking a source for calorie burns for a month is that if I'm overestimating, I don't want to spend a month either at a plateau or even gaining, because I am eating too many calories thinking I'm burning them.

    I ended up meeting somewhere in the middle and counting this workout for like 375 calories. I figured with how long I held a steady heart rate at 75-80% HRM, 375 is probably a pretty good guess. If the HRM is more accurate, then I'm lowballing it, and I'm okay with that. This whole calorie burning thing is the part that's confusing me the most....
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Does the HRM know your max HR? If so, I'd probably assume that the HRM is more accurate, but it's really only a guess.

    According to your numbers, you burned 12.6cals per minute, which is pretty high, especially for walking. But you're heavier, so that'll increase the burn rate.

    Your best bet is to pick 1 source for calorie burns and use that source exclusively for a month. Then compare your actual results with your expected results. If they aren't fairly close, then tweak things as necessary.

    Yes, the HRM knows my MHR (it has my age, weight, height, and gender and it uses the 220-age to calculate MHR). And like someone else said, I'd always heard the machines were inaccurate and the HRM's were the most accurate if the data is entered accurately. My problem with picking a source for calorie burns for a month is that if I'm overestimating, I don't want to spend a month either at a plateau or even gaining, because I am eating too many calories thinking I'm burning them.

    I ended up meeting somewhere in the middle and counting this workout for like 375 calories. I figured with how long I held a steady heart rate at 75-80% HRM, 375 is probably a pretty good guess. If the HRM is more accurate, then I'm lowballing it, and I'm okay with that. This whole calorie burning thing is the part that's confusing me the most....

    A few things...

    1) 220 - age is just an estimate. Who knows how accurate it is.
    2) Some trial and error is a necessary part of all this, so you have to be prepared for (and accept) some experimenting/tweaking/backtracking early on. If you're that worried about it, then pick a source and use 1/2 or 3/4 what it estimates.
    3) Averaging things out is a pretty common thing. Using a lower number is never a bad idea.
  • phjorg1
    phjorg1 Posts: 642 Member
    Does the HRM know your max HR? If so, I'd probably assume that the HRM is more accurate, but it's really only a guess.

    According to your numbers, you burned 12.6cals per minute, which is pretty high, especially for walking. But you're heavier, so that'll increase the burn rate.

    Your best bet is to pick 1 source for calorie burns and use that source exclusively for a month. Then compare your actual results with your expected results. If they aren't fairly close, then tweak things as necessary.

    Yes, the HRM knows my MHR (it has my age, weight, height, and gender and it uses the 220-age to calculate MHR). And like someone else said, I'd always heard the machines were inaccurate and the HRM's were the most accurate if the data is entered accurately. My problem with picking a source for calorie burns for a month is that if I'm overestimating, I don't want to spend a month either at a plateau or even gaining, because I am eating too many calories thinking I'm burning them.

    I ended up meeting somewhere in the middle and counting this workout for like 375 calories. I figured with how long I held a steady heart rate at 75-80% HRM, 375 is probably a pretty good guess. If the HRM is more accurate, then I'm lowballing it, and I'm okay with that. This whole calorie burning thing is the part that's confusing me the most....

    1) 220-age sucks. You need actual max HR settings.

    2) You need actual VO2MAX settings. If your HRM does not have a way to input this, then it will for sure be inaccurate and just a pure estimate for someone of average fitness. As calorie burn is directly correlated to Vo2MAX and not Heart rate.
  • suppakana
    suppakana Posts: 307 Member
    ... I did a 3.5 mph walk at a 5.0 incline on the treadmill for 45 minutes. ...
    PS -- I maintained an average heart rate in the 140's during my walk, which is about 75% of my MHR. Not sure if that makes a difference.....

    45 minutes? 75% of your MHR? I'd follow what your HRM says. Although it might be overestimating a little bit, it has a better idea than your machine does.
  • phjorg1
    phjorg1 Posts: 642 Member
    ... I did a 3.5 mph walk at a 5.0 incline on the treadmill for 45 minutes. ...
    PS -- I maintained an average heart rate in the 140's during my walk, which is about 75% of my MHR. Not sure if that makes a difference.....

    45 minutes? 75% of your MHR? I'd follow what your HRM says. Although it might be overestimating a little bit, it has a better idea than your machine does.
    I would disagree. the more out of shape you are, the more HRM will way overestimate your calorie burn. Unless you're able to properly enter your tested VO2MAX settings that is.

    And her first post is a textbook example of why HRM isn't accurate in all cases. I would trust her machine on this one.

Categories