HRM, GPS logger, MFP calorie differences - your experiences
MORECHABLIS
Posts: 164 Member
HOW DO YOU ESTIMATE YOUR EXERCISE CALORIES? & are they accurate?
Have you got a Heart Rate Monitor (linked to a smart phone or watch), or a GPS logger (eg. i-Gotu) or use a website calorie estimator.
I have recently bought a HRM linked to a watch, I've used GPS loggers & websites to find my calories. I used all three to see what they said about my calories used during the exercise.
EXAMPLE: (cycling over 160 minutes, 12-14 miles per hour)
Highest: GPS Logger (e.g i-Gotu) = 3,921.calories
Medium: HRM monitor with watch (cheap one) = 3,234 cals (I have just bought a Polar H7 for my samsung GS3, mobile am waiting for update software update to use it)
Lowest: My Fitness Pal = 2610 calories
WHAT ARE YOUR EXPERIENCES Or have you got various results, so wide?
Have you got a Heart Rate Monitor (linked to a smart phone or watch), or a GPS logger (eg. i-Gotu) or use a website calorie estimator.
I have recently bought a HRM linked to a watch, I've used GPS loggers & websites to find my calories. I used all three to see what they said about my calories used during the exercise.
EXAMPLE: (cycling over 160 minutes, 12-14 miles per hour)
Highest: GPS Logger (e.g i-Gotu) = 3,921.calories
Medium: HRM monitor with watch (cheap one) = 3,234 cals (I have just bought a Polar H7 for my samsung GS3, mobile am waiting for update software update to use it)
Lowest: My Fitness Pal = 2610 calories
WHAT ARE YOUR EXPERIENCES Or have you got various results, so wide?
0
Replies
-
I have a hrm, polar ft60. I love it, like knowing how hard I.m working, makes me work through the moments I.d take a breather, or I can see I need to March on spot (just do aerobics at moment as school holidays) to bring my heart rate into the lower training zones. For me it's extra accountability & I want to meet my targets. Wish I had brought it months ago! I.'ve not compared mfp stats against hrm,.0
-
Hmmm, if you ask me all of those are a tad high but I guess it'd depend on the terrain you ride.
I use Strava to log my endeavours both on and off road, my last ride was 63 minutes, covered 15.1 miles (average of 14.2mph) and incorporated 980ft of climbing and the app calculated that as a 1081kcal burn. Gross that up for your 160mins and you get 2745kcals which would mean MFP's the most accurate.
My mate rides with an HRM, we're similar builds and we find the app to be about the same as his HRM so while this isn't exactly scientific proof it's the best field comparison I've got.0 -
Your HRM should be accurate-ish on any aerobic exercise with significantly raised heart rate if you entered your details (and updated as your stats change).
I use both HRM and RunKeeper (GPS app) for jogs and they come in about the same - although the HRM always shows a higher burn. I think this is because it also incorporates the burn that would have happened anyway (if I was just sitting on the sofa).
I don't trust the MFP database, purely because there are things like "Cleaning, vigorous effort" on there that are equivalent to going for a jog. Pfffft!0 -
I have a polar RCX5 HRM which gives me calorie burn
I use a runtastic (run and bike) app
I import my HRM activity into Strava and Runtastic feeds into MFP
I frequently have four different numbers of calories per activity
I have one cycle I do a lot which is 22km at zone 3 Heart rate and Polar says 630 calories but runtastic says 500ish
if I do the route twice in zone 2 Polar says about 900 calories but runtastic says only 700.
Which is more accurate Hmmm presumably the polar but none of these devices seem to allow for the fact that it's 43degrees Celsius here at lunch time. I'm no expert but surely I work harder - burn more calories here than if I was in the UK in 20 odd degrees?
I got really wound up earlier trying to work out how to get all four applications agreeing but then I thought "why bother"?
if I'm plus or minus 100 kcal who cares as I don't eat back all my calorie burn anyway0
This discussion has been closed.