HRM calorie burned compared to MFP Running

rachmulvin
rachmulvin Posts: 1
in Fitness and Exercise
So a couple days ago I bought my first HRM (polar ft4 with a chest strap) and I was really excited to try it out. The first workout I did was the Jillian Michaels burn fat boost metabolism video. I'm 19 years old, 5'5 and 135 lbs. and the HRM logged my calorie burn at about 250 calories for the 45 minute circuit video. I was completely shocked because I looked online at other peoples calories burned and everyone elses was around 400. I figured I should try it out again and ran a little over 5 miles in 40 minutes. This time the HRM said I burnt only 395 calories...now I know if you weigh less you burn less calories but I always stuck to the rule that running a mile was burning about 100 calories. I checked my watch about every halg mile and my heart rate was usually around 165. Plus, when I logged running 40 minutes at 7.5 mph MFP gives me 500 calories. Am I doing something wrong or is this actually what I'm burning?

Replies

  • AmyRhubarb
    AmyRhubarb Posts: 6,890 Member
    Sounds about right to me. I'm older and taller, (and slower!) but running gives me about 100 cals per 10 minutes or so, and the burn for the video would be similar I think. The Polar is definitely more accurate than the MFP estimate, which is notoriously high.
  • ExpectantHope
    ExpectantHope Posts: 60 Member
    MFP is notorious for exaggerating calories burned. Plus, it's kind of hard to base what you burn on what other people burn doing the same activity - as you said, the more you weigh the more calories you burn. Stick with the HRM and you're getting a more accurate estimation of what you're really burning.
  • thatismesammyg
    thatismesammyg Posts: 71 Member
    That sounds about right. MFP is ridiculously high. The Polar HRM is a much more accurate calculation for calories burned.
  • carliekitty
    carliekitty Posts: 303 Member
    Weight multiplied by .63 is calories burned per mile for running. It's your net calorie burn.
  • Alsvic
    Alsvic Posts: 93 Member
    at 19 years old your Max target heart rate is 201 if you can run at 80% of your max target for 40 minutes you are in good shape. The truth is that the more physically fit you are the less calories you will burn during a given work out.
  • colobruton
    colobruton Posts: 5
    i have a really low heart rate and my trainer said it is not because I'm extra fit or anything, it might just be genetic. I just always run a low heart rate on heart rate monitors. I can run/ride with people who are a similar height/weight and it is amazing how much lower my heart rate is. I have the same problem when running with a heart rate monitor so I just go with a general rule of 100/mile. I'm 5"4 and about 128lbs.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    If you truly ran @ 7.5 mph then you would burn around 500 cals in 40 min. The FT4 doesn't allow for much tinkering with the setup but I would double-check your settings. For whatever reason, your HRM doesn't think you are working as hard as you are (or else your distance is off).

    The formula for estimating calories burned from running speed and weight is relatively simple and accurate. The MFP numbers for running use that formula. When it comes to walking or running, if there is a significant difference in calories in this case between MFP and the Polar, it is the Polar that has a problem.
  • Evelynnn2014
    Evelynnn2014 Posts: 42
    Good formula to know, but how does it take into account speed, hills etc.?
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    at 19 years old your Max target heart rate is 201 if you can run at 80% of your max target for 40 minutes you are in good shape. The truth is that the more physically fit you are the less calories you will burn during a given work out.

    The "truth" is just the opposite. A more fit person can push themselves harder and will burn more calories under most circumstances, as long as weight is equal.

    HRMs are dumbing down America at an alarming rate.

Categories