burning WAY more calories than I though

husker_gal
husker_gal Posts: 462 Member
edited September 22 in Health and Weight Loss
So...I just started going to the gym. :D I'm very proud of myself because I always wanted to go to the gym but never wanted to drive far to get there...so when a new LAFitness openned up about a mile from my house,naturally, I was ecstatic! So anyway...A while ago I bought a HRM but before that I would just record my exercise according to what is on here...then Sunday and today I wore my HRM while I worked out...WOW! is all I can say about the difference in readings for calories burned. In a 45 minute workout on Sunday I burned over 900 calories and when I entered it according to what is on MFP and it was a difference of almost 600 calories! Today I burned 661 calories and before I recorded it I checked it against what is on MFP and it came out to be a difference of 500 calories. According to MFP I should have only burned 160 ish calories when I really burned 661. Has anybody else noticed that their calories burned according to their HRM is drastically different from MFP? Any ideas why?

Replies

  • JDMPWR
    JDMPWR Posts: 1,863 Member
    What kind of HRM? Did you enter in your age, height, weight, sex, and v02max? That sounds really high even for your weight. I was at 230 and doing 45 minutes at 145bpm I was only hitting 600 cals burning in 45 minutes.

    Something doesn't sound right here.
  • tinasullens
    tinasullens Posts: 203 Member
    I have to agree with jtuner....exactly what I was going to ask! Usually MFP figures cals burned higher than what a HRM does. If you have one that uses the chest strap and you have to enter your age, weight, height, etc. then it should be pretty accurate. But again, I agree with jtuner, something doesn't sound quite right.
  • MissingMinnesota
    MissingMinnesota Posts: 7,486 Member
    Something doesn't sound right there as MFP is usually way higher then what my HRM gives me.
  • husker_gal
    husker_gal Posts: 462 Member
    I have a Timex with a chest strap...I entered, age, sex, height, and weight. The only thing I can think of is that my heart rate is usually higher than normal and when I work out it gets really high. My average heart rate tonight was 170. I tested my heart rate manually and on my HRM and both corresponded with one another. I also checked my heart rate manually against what the heart rate monitor said at a resting heart rate and it was almost spot on.
  • MissAnjy
    MissAnjy Posts: 2,480 Member
    I don't want to burst your bubble, but that doesn't sound right :(
  • stringsNlinks
    stringsNlinks Posts: 293 Member
    Ditto...I use the chest strap with all my info in it for an accurate reading. I've always heard that is most correct.
  • husker_gal
    husker_gal Posts: 462 Member
    Ditto...I use the chest strap with all my info in it for an accurate reading. I've always heard that is most correct.

    that's what I've been doing too. but there is such a big difference in MFP versus my HRM I just had to post something about it.
  • husker_gal
    husker_gal Posts: 462 Member
    oh and I want to note that I just rechecked what MFP says I should have burned and it says I should have burned 358 calories tonight as apposed to my HRM's 661.
  • cutmd
    cutmd Posts: 1,168 Member
    I think it depends in the workout. For kickboxing, mfp usually credits me with more than my hrm, but for the elliptical I burn almost 200 cals more. This is because my heart rate is higher than mfp anticipates. While the girl next to me is talking on her cell phone (:mad:) i am putting in work and burn 600/hr even though Im 120lbs use my polar f4 with cheststrap and my age/weight inputed.

    170 is pretty high, your calorie burn might be right though I'm surprised you can sustain it that high for so long. What were you doing?
  • JDMPWR
    JDMPWR Posts: 1,863 Member
    Something doesn't sound right there as MFP is usually way higher then what my HRM gives me.

    Higher? Really. I noticed that MFP is way lower then what I found 2 different Polars to be.
  • JDMPWR
    JDMPWR Posts: 1,863 Member
    I have a Timex with a chest strap...I entered, age, sex, height, and weight. The only thing I can think of is that my heart rate is usually higher than normal and when I work out it gets really high. My average heart rate tonight was 170. I tested my heart rate manually and on my HRM and both corresponded with one another. I also checked my heart rate manually against what the heart rate monitor said at a resting heart rate and it was almost spot on.

    What kind of exercise are you doing? 170 is decently high for most people. 170-190 is danger zone high. I mean full out sprint I hit 175-180 but thats a sprint not a higher speed run/jog.
  • JDMPWR
    JDMPWR Posts: 1,863 Member
    I think it depends in the workout. For kickboxing, mfp usually credits me with more than my hrm, but for the elliptical I burn almost 200 cals more. This is because my heart rate is higher than mfp anticipates. While the girl next to me is talking on her cell phone (:mad:) i am putting in work and burn 600/hr even though Im 120lbs use my polar f4 with cheststrap and my age/weight inputed.

    170 is pretty high, your calorie burn might be right though I'm surprised you can sustain it that high for so long. What were you doing?

    At some point you reach a threshold where BPM causes no more cals burned. If you compare a overweight person versus a distance runner and were to test cals burned between the two at 170bpm you would see no real difference. below 160 you may see more weight loss in the obese person and the reason why is conditioning of the heart.

    I have done some very in depth comparisons with a HRM at 140-150 and 160 as the goal hr and the variances for myself were little to none.
  • lethwin
    lethwin Posts: 18 Member
    I bought a timex a few weeks ago and noticed the same thing. The hrm was always way higher than both MFP and the machines themselves. Then I started investigating and found out that one of the vital stats to determine accurate calories burned is your VO2max. Since my timex doesnt let you enter this value its using an average which I believe is inaccurate for me. I was dissappointed since I bought the dang HRM specifically to track calories accurately. What I have been doing is subtracting around 200 calories from what my HRM is telling me just to make sure I'm not calculating too high.
  • husker_gal
    husker_gal Posts: 462 Member
    I have been mildly concerned about my hr during workouts because it gets SO high. My peak hear rate last night was 199. I slowed down to drop it down because I know that is really high... I naturally have a higher heart rate and just attributed that to why it gets so high when I exercise. I was on the treadmil, elliptical, and stationary bike. I use a random setting on the machine which varies speeds and intesities over a period of time. I had no dizziness, pain, shortness of breath and I was able to continue to hold a conversation even when my heart rate was in the 180s. If I keep my heart rate at 160 I feel like I'm not working out at all. I literally walk on the treadmil at like 3.0 mph and I can get up to 150-160. it just doesn't feel effective to me.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories