My HRM has hurt my feelings!

I have presumed that would happen if I got one. It is a large part of the reason I just went with a fitbit. I still get to "feel" accomplished after my walks. My heart rate never gets that high no matter how hard it gets to breath, so I have basically chosen to live in denial.

Don't forget the anaerobic/metabloic effects of your KB workout which a HRM won't measure.

Woohoo!! You're so much fitter than you thought you were! That's awesome :happy:

Yes, it's likely that your new HRM is more accurate than MFP because it does have more data available to it for making the calculations.

I would say that 334 cals for half an hour walk (what speed/pace?) and a half hour kettlebell session would be about right. Can you up the walk to a run for a few extra calories? Maybe move up a weight in the kettlebells?

It comes to us all when the workout that used to give us a massive burn no longer delivers. It does mean you get to up the intensity though which is kind of fun and you get to feel even fitter!

Good luck - it's a positive thing really (though I can see why you're a bit annoyed!)

334 cals is still a great burn regardless! But yes, MFP is *very* generous with calorie burn. But, you should be happy because from here on out your burn will be way more accurate. You can add more to your workout if you want to bring the calorie count up, and be sure that it is on the dot and no more 'hoping' it is accurate.

See, the opposite was true for me when I was using the HRM sensors on the gym equipment. I got my Polar FT7 expecting to have it tell me I wasn't burning what I thought I was but instead it told me I was burning more! But I think it's just because my HR gets so high because some days I really don't feel like I've burned what it says I have.
Granted, it is just an estimation and all my FT7 knows is my height, weight, gender, etc because I don't know how to measure the co2 output or whatever it is called and that is supposed to give you the most accurate calorie burn estimation.
However I wish I could take mine swimming.
160 minutes of a 'leisurely swim' comes in at over 1,000 calories burned, and I just know that can't be right.
::shakes fist at sky::
Curse you, inaccurate measurements of MFP!
I share in your frustration.

Hmm..MFP shows it burning 1,139 cal when I log it and this swimfit site shows it burning 1,173.

Guess maybe I am burning a ton of calories?...
Ugh. I need a waterproof HRM. Lol.
:ohwell:

I've noticed that MapMyFitness tends to be generous relative to my Polar HRM as well. It appears that it's due to their formulas, rather than to the data because I've worked out with two HRMs, one the Polar and the other feeding into MMF and MMF tallies a consistently higher result. Sometimes it's pretty small but other times the difference is quite large. I usually just overwrite MMF's number with the Polar's. I'd rather be conservative.

See, the opposite was true for me when I was using the HRM sensors on the gym equipment. I got my Polar FT7 expecting to have it tell me I wasn't burning what I thought I was but instead it told me I was burning more! But I think it's just because my HR gets so high because some days I really don't feel like I've burned what it says I have.
Granted, it is just an estimation and all my FT7 knows is my height, weight, gender, etc because I don't know how to measure the co2 output or whatever it is called and that is supposed to give you the most accurate calorie burn estimation.
However I wish I could take mine swimming.
160 minutes of a 'leisurely swim' comes in at over 1,000 calories burned, and I just know that can't be right.
::shakes fist at sky::
Curse you, inaccurate measurements of MFP!
I share in your frustration.

I took my Polar H7 swimming. The sensor (chest strap tucked tightly under my sports bra style swim top) links with Bluetooth to my iPhone on the bench, and the signal was strong enough to carry along an olympic size pool.
Not sure what MFP considers a leisurely swim, but I 'leisurely' swim 1 mile in under 1 hr, and it didn't burn more than just under 400 calories. So I'm guessing, if you go for a 2-mile target in those 160 minutes, considering elevated heart rate due to exhaustion, you can probably get close to those 1000 calories. (For comparison, I'm 5'5", 132 lbs, female)

What is the electrode gel? I'm so scared to swim with it! Haha. It wasn't cheap and I'm a little nervous to put any of it under water. I'm gonna have to look at the manual (not that I don't trust that you're telling the truth, I just want to double check. )
That would be amazing if I could get an accurate count of my swims!

You can view or download the manual from the Polar website. It has much more info in it than the getting started guide that came in the box. (Page 16- under water resistance for the FT7 Training computer). You can also check the back of the sensor. It says it is water resistance up to 30 meters.

I bought the gel with my HRM because I read that it helps to keep the connection in a pool with chlorine. I use it all the time and works great. It wasn't that much on Amazon and you don't have to put that much on. I just squirt a little bit on the part of the strap and spread it out to cover the rubber area that goes against your skin where the sensor would snap onto on the front side.

My experience completely. My typical cardio workout is 65 minutes on the elliptical targeting a heart rate of 140. My Polar FT4 says I burn a little over 500 kcals, the machine says around 750, and MFP database says 882.