HRM verses MFP database??? So confused :(

the HRM is pretty much always more accurate.. if the walk really brought your heart rate up it's definitely possible. Be sure you got all the settings in the watch right though.. then it should be accurate, far more than the database.

Your HRM should be right as long as you have set it up properly, ie, weight, age, etc and are using a chest strap. I would go with the reading on your HRM. MFP is just an average.

I don't know why your HRM is so out of whack compared to MFP, as my HRM doesn't give me cals. However what I do is put my average HR over the course of the workout (which the HM does give me) and the length of time with a couple other tidbits on this website tool's, and it tells me how many cals I burn per hour and how many for my actual length of time I did. I hope this helps!

http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

At least that way I know it is taking the intensity of my workout into consideration. I do find that for the level I workout at (which is fairly intense), MFP is pretty accurate for my particular exercise of choice - the elliptical machine.

Did you double check that you have entered both your weight and maximum heart rate correctly? Your HRM probably uses your percentage of maximum heart rate when calculating calorie burn, so an error there can throw your calculation off. I.e., if your max HR is too low, then your HR while exercising will be a greater percentage of your max HR, resulting in a higher calorie burn. The most common formula for calculating max HR is 220 minus your age, though there are lots and lots of different formulas.

Just remember that the ones set up in the database have been added by people

Please cite where you heard this information. If that were correct the specific items added would have an * like the food individuals add. If I were to search Turbo Fire for example, it is not in the system despite dozens of people on MFP doing this b/c exercises an individual adds is ONLY on their own list, it's not shared.

The MFP database is set up on the assumption of an average fitness level for your weight and age, and average exertion levels of the various listed activities.
A decent HRM that reads out calories is very dependent on age, weight, and fitness level that you enter into the device to calculate exertion levels based upon your bpm.
If you HRM doesn't ask for age, weight, and fitness level, or it isn't entered correctly, it cannot accurately record calories expended. If it is set up correctly, a better quality HRM is a much better calculator of calories expended; its using your real HR to calculate based upon assumptions used for your age and fitness.
The more fit you are, the less calories you will burn for a given activity at a given exertion level. The more fit you are, the more efficient your body is at producing power and work at a given energy consumption.

As a rule of thumb, if your HRM is under-reporting compared to MFP data, you aren't working as hard as what would be considered average for the activity for a person similar to you. If it is over-reporting, the opposite is true.

To give an example, right now I'm riding my road bike quite a bit (165 miles in the last 10 days). My average speed is 17-18 MPH, but the MFP database more aligns with the exertion level for "bike, vigorous 14-16 MPH" (my bike is aerodynamic and I'm wearing a Kit). Depending on just how hard I go out, I have to goal seek the number of minutes to match what my HRM says I expended, because my HRM is more accurate. Generally I have to adjust the minutes downward because I'm not working as hard as the average person like me. But if I go out really hard, pushing an average speed 18+ MPH for an hour for instance, I may have to adjust the minutes upward. I still like using the database because it tells me a relative number to compare my personal effort to.

My goal by the way is to match my personal best in a time trial of 22.5 MPH for an hour. Hopefully in August I'll be in the 20's. Need to lose more weight to get there. Blubber is the enemy.

Hope this makes sense to someone out there.

My hubby bought it for me it's one that goes on my wrist and it uses my heart rate prior to exercise, during warm up, during my exercise and during cool down to calculate my calories burned. OMG this is just way too confusing, maybe I'll just go back to MFP even if it's lower at least I'll be safe.

If you didn't have to enter in data to calculate your max HR in order to calculate calories burned, it is using more general assumptions than the database is. In that case the MFP database is more accurate.

I found that my numbers were a lot different also. Mine seem to be more acurate with my HRM. Do a couple of checks for yourself. While you have your HRM on, check your pulse, see how they compare at different excersion levels. When I did this it matched up better with my HRM than with what my treadmill said, or what I found on HRM. Not everyone is the same, it is very possible that you burned that many calories in that amount of time. For me personally, when I walk on my treadmill I average about 100 calories per 10 minutes. I know this is not the same for others who may be in better shape than I am. Hope this helps! (:

My goal by the way is to match my personal best in a time trial of 22.5 MPH for an hour. Hopefully in August I'll be in the 20's. Need to lose more weight to get there. Blubber is the enemy.

Ain't that the truth! And thanks for the awesome post/reply. Great in-depth answer!