HRM vs. MPF calories burnt

garden_girl18
garden_girl18 Posts: 23 Member
edited September 26 in Health and Weight Loss
So I'm a bit concerned about how many calories I burn during exercise. According to MPF, walking for 47 minutes at 3.5mph (brisk pace) only burns 197ish calories. According to my HRM, 47 minutes of walking burns 459 calories. Does this seen a bit drastic to anyone else??? Which number should I go with?

On the other hand, some activities are pretty similar in calories burnt using either MPF or a HRM ( Zumba for example). Just curious what everyone else's take on this is :-)

Replies

  • Angela4Health
    Angela4Health Posts: 1,319 Member
    What kind of HRM do you have? Honestly, if you are truly only walking, I can't see how you are burning over 400 calories in that amount of time. I can power walk for half an hour and only burn just over 100. Everyone is different though, so I don't know.
  • jrusso28
    jrusso28 Posts: 249 Member
    Your HRM is way off on this one.
    Make sure you've calibrated the thing properly.
    I had to tell mine my age, my weight, height before I started using it.
  • Angela4Health
    Angela4Health Posts: 1,319 Member
    What kind of HRM do you have? Honestly, if you are truly only walking, I can't see how you are burning over 400 calories in that amount of time. I can power walk for half an hour and only burn just over 100. Everyone is different though, so I don't know.
    [/quote

    ETA: If you were walking uphill you would have burned more calories than walking on a flat surface though.
  • MissKeeKee
    MissKeeKee Posts: 13 Member
    I burn over 400 for every 40 minutes that I walk at 3.8 mph/avg, but that is with some jogging in between... So it's not too far off to think that you can burn that much... and HRM's are ALWAYS the more accurate way to go because it actually monitors YOUR heart rate and isn't just some standardized crap.
  • garden_girl18
    garden_girl18 Posts: 23 Member
    I burn over 400 for every 40 minutes that I walk at 3.8 mph/avg, but that is with some jogging in between... So it's not too far off to think that you can burn that much... and HRM's are ALWAYS the more accurate way to go because it actually monitors YOUR heart rate and isn't just some standardized crap.

    I compared my HRM calories burnt to MPF calories burnt when I did Zumba yesterday. The results where within a few calories of each other. And I wear my HRM when I work out in my yard, cuz I've got a HUGH yard and lots of work to do LOL. MY HRM said that I burnt over 500 calories the other day from being outside in the garden. I just thought it was SUCH a drastic difference for the walking!
  • juliapurpletoes
    juliapurpletoes Posts: 951 Member
    I'm thinking your HRM is pretty close. but, so much depends on you, your body structure, muscle mass etc. So, if you've set it up properly and it has a chest strap I would trust the HRM.

    I'd also do some figuring on what your maintanace calories are (the ones you would just burn just sitting around) and back them out. Your in the 10 or so pounds and don't have alot of wiggle room for when you eat. so, you don't want to over or under eat them.

    great walk!!!
  • MissKeeKee
    MissKeeKee Posts: 13 Member
    In my experience on here so far, the walking calories have always been way lower for walking then they should be. But I just thought it was because I'm so out of shape my heart works harder then most peoples, lol.
  • fullerlj
    fullerlj Posts: 25
    a lot of things factor into a person's calorie burn. Age, height, weight are all the ones they use on MFP but a person's muscle tone also factors into it. The more lean muscle mass you have the more calories you will burn. That is why it is soooo important to strength train. I know HRM and things like the BodyBugg are the most accurate way to calculate calories burned and MFP just uses your age, height and weight and gives you an average number.
  • WarmDontBurn
    WarmDontBurn Posts: 1,253 Member
    I walked a lot last year and just looked up one day that comes pretty close 43 mins and 251 calories. I bust my butt dancing for 45 mins and can burn 355 all recorded with my HRM.
  • amber_hanners
    amber_hanners Posts: 388 Member
    the hrm sounds pretty much right to me i burn around that much on my walks
  • cath1024
    cath1024 Posts: 79 Member
    I do a treadmill 3.0mph walk for 35 mins with a 2 minute fast run at 5mph at the very end and burn 386-410 calories - this is with an incline varying from 2-5.
    This is the calories burned shown on my HRM with chest strap. The treadmill shows the calories burned at about 150 less - i am going witht he HRM as i did put in my weight, height, age ect and the treadmill will show the same colories burned for anyone who does the same thing i had just done no matter what their age, height weight ect...
  • Nkauj_Lis
    Nkauj_Lis Posts: 70
    Make sure to adjust your HRM every birthday and every 5 pounds because this can throw it off too. I bought my HRM last june and as I lose weight, I didn't adjust it so my calories burn was alot higher then what it should be. It seems like the heavier you are the fasting your heart beats, so it came to a point where I stop losing weight because I was eating too many exercise calories. I adjust my HRM and start losing again.
  • achapman01
    achapman01 Posts: 42 Member
    I think the HRM is more accurate. I have the Gaiam wrist watch kind and have entered my age, height, weight, etc. I thought the read out on the elliptical at the gym seemed awfully high, and sure enough, the HRM was lower by about 80 cals. I just did a 53 minute brisk walk with some interval running and burned 399 cals. Good luck and great job!:bigsmile:
  • garden_girl18
    garden_girl18 Posts: 23 Member
    Thanks everyone for your input! My HRM is the wrist watch style, and I had to enter my age, weight, height, etc. I will definitely be using my HRM readout as opposed to MFP!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories