New HRM Question!!! :/

If your HR was avaraging 165 for the walk, I would say that the HRM calorie count was correct. I would double check to see if your HR was that high, because that seems high for that pace to me.

Did you program it to you correctly? Sex/Height/Weight/Age? I'm not doubting it, because an average hearrate of 165 with how long you walked would produce those results. Maybe it is just me, but how do you get your hearrate so high by "walking". I average about 150 and that is running and walking. When I run the highest my hr gets up to is about 164 and that is at a pace of 5.2mph. When I walk at 4.1mph it drops to about 146.

Edited to add: I don't mean to be rude--please don't think I am. I just saw your ticker. I'm guessing walking at your weight produces a higher heart rate. I would say your HRM is accurate.

Id agree with checking on that HR. I have an FT7 also, have worn it daily for about 2 years. My MAX HR in a 45 minute spin class is about 165.

Not saying yours wasn't that high - it very well may have been! BUT -

Could you have a normal conversation at 165? Or would you be out of breath? if you were avg 165, you probably cant talk very much.

Were you sweating at 165? You should be.

Do you engage in vigorous exercise a lot? Or is a 3.65 mph walk a big push for you? If you were pushing, you could easily avg 165.

Again, not trying to come down on you at all, but if you are not in very good shape, your HR will run higher than normal - if you are well overweight AND out of shape, it would be higher still...

MFP calorie estimates are high for people who are FIT, but maybe low for people who are not!

If you are just beginning your journey, and you were wearing your HRM correctly, chances are your burn is accurate (you said you triple checked your settings).

As you get more and more fit, and weigh less and less, you will find you burn less too.

Either way, good luck with your new HRM - I LOVE LOVE LOVE mine. the FT7 is worth every penny.

I am going with the same everyone else is saying. I say you get a free app like RUNKEEPER. It has each event and pace and Cal counter. I use MFP, RK, and a Polar F7 and than take a avg from the 3. Runkeeper is normally closer to HRM tha MFP is. On you HRM did you do test activities to get your high and resting HR?

Besides all that I would say great burn and great job on what you have already done. Keep it up.

Trust your FT7 it is working out your burn

I suppose I should add more to this story. Lol. I currently weigh in at 348, so am a big man. Haha. I was sweaty as hell and probably wouldn't be able to chat, no. Lol.

I wouldn't eat all those calories back.

There's one study I read that found that Polar (specifically the FT60) overestimated calories burned by about 27/28%. I would multiple the number it gives you by that amount...so, more like 640-650 burned.

The energy cost of walking is relatively consistent. There are equations to predict the energy cost of walking that are well tested and relatively accurate. Many of the MFP calorie counts are way off, but for walking they are pretty accurate.

There are some factors that can affect the accuracy of those equations, especially if one is walking outdoors. The primary one obviously is hills, incline walking can increase intensity substantially. At a certain point, extra weight can also add to the aerobic intensity, independent of the weight itself.

At your weight, I would consider the MFP number to be the minimum. I would also suspect that the HRM number is an overestimate. The FT7 uses an estimated age-predicted maximum heart rate. Probably 1/3 of the population has an actual max HR that is notably higher than the age-predicted estimate. If you are in that group, then the FT7 will overestimate your calories because it assumes that you are working at a higher % of maximum than you actually are.

Resting heart rate has nothing to do with calories burned during exercise.

1 Joule (a measure of work) is equivalent to 1 kg*(m/s)^2.

If you look at the equation you can see that it is directly proportional to mass. Obviously it's not quite this simple and straightforward as there are other variables (such as heart rate, form, efficiency, etc), but you get the idea. Based on your weight, the calorie count you're getting may be accurate.

I was wondering how to handle this question as well. I have a fitbit flex and a treadmill. Prior to getting the Polar FT7 for Christmas I would use MFP numbers for treadmill session. I usually found that the treadmill calories matched pretty closely to the MFP.
Now with the HRM I am finding large differences. I am not a big person size 10-12 girl. I do have a higher resting rate of 80 bpm. An example would be:

Treadmill 67 min, 449 calories, 4.0 miles (per treadmill)

HRM: 632 calories - avg heart rate 139 and max heart rate 171

I usually do some sprints and then have to cut the speed to allow for me to be able to "breathe" again. I keep my incline at 3% for the entire time. My sprints are not very long but my recovery time for my heart rate seems to take quite awhile.

I am not sure what I should be putting down for calories between the two.