Which Calorie Burn do is most accurate?

jhardenbergh
jhardenbergh Posts: 1,035 Member
edited September 29 in Fitness and Exercise
So today, I went for my normal 2 mile walk (a little more) around the neighborhood, It was a little bit faster pace this time around, at around 4.0 mph. I have been doing it at around 3.75 mph in the past. The question I have is which calorie burn should I use for the day, I just bought a new HRM with chest strap. I had a pedometer/HRM/Watch before with no chest strap, and I have calculated it in the MFP database. Here are the results. I figured the strap HRM is probably most accurate, but I wanted to get other opinions. I don't want to overestimate the burn because that defeats the purpose.

About 2/3 of the way is uphill, which is why I was able to get my HR up there. With the chest strap my Peak HR was 154 Low HR was around 117 when I started. Even going downhill on the last stretch I was able to keep my HR around 125 bpm.

MFP Calorie Burn was around 375 calories.

Watch w/o chest strap was around 230 calories-My avg HR was around 127 bpm, however it only calculates when I press my fingers on the metal face.

Chest Strap HRM was 621 calories-My avg HR was 133 bpm, it calculates continuously

Replies

  • Imtherunner
    Imtherunner Posts: 25 Member
    I would go with the hrm.
  • Huskeryogi
    Huskeryogi Posts: 578 Member
    I always use the MFP estimate. My HRM always comes out higher so I figure it's safer to go with the lower number since laypeople over estimate calories burned.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    At 4.0 mph, your calories burned per hour (on the flat) is roughly 4 times your body wt in KG. Walking uphill will add to that, but there is no way to tell unless you know the exact % grade.

    MFP may be a little under, but your HRM is way over.
  • kennie2
    kennie2 Posts: 1,170 Member
    Use your hrm. Mfp won't take into account extra effort for hills and stuff
  • jhardenbergh
    jhardenbergh Posts: 1,035 Member
    At 4.0 mph, your calories burned per hour (on the flat) is roughly 4 times your body wt in KG. Walking uphill will add to that, but there is no way to tell unless you know the exact % grade.

    MFP may be a little under, but your HRM is way over.

    I weigh around 260 lbs so for the 32 minutes, would be around 240 calories, There are two real steep climbs one is probably around 25 degrees and the other around 20 degrees, maybe more I am underestimating some. I would say the bigger one is about 25% of the trip and the smaller one is about 10 percent so I really, the other uphill is a slight grade say on average around 5%.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,420 Member
    How much do you weigh? You look like a pretty big strong person. 600+ calories for a 25 min walk seems high.


    **edit, we posted at the same time and you answered my weight question.
    Do you have your HRM calibrated to your specs? That 600+ is still high. I'd go with around 330-380 .....I'm guessing....but not 600.

    ______________________________________
  • mark03264
    mark03264 Posts: 334 Member
    Yeah, 621 is way over.
    I would go with MFP.
  • davidrt
    davidrt Posts: 162
    id go with the lower of the 2 you cant really go wrong with that
  • Jjames1978
    Jjames1978 Posts: 39 Member
    At 4.0 mph, your calories burned per hour (on the flat) is roughly 4 times your body wt in KG. Walking uphill will add to that, but there is no way to tell unless you know the exact % grade.

    MFP may be a little under, but your HRM is way over.

    I strongly disagree with your HRM as being way over, It is the only accurate way to tell calories burned. Have you programmed it with your max and min heart rates or just avg? People also forget that a heavier person actually burns more calories doing the same exercise, they need to look at it as if they were to strap on the extra weight. My HRM is always over to but I still only add MFP calories to be safe, I don't know if its correct but it has worked for me so far.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,420 Member
    At 4.0 mph, your calories burned per hour (on the flat) is roughly 4 times your body wt in KG. Walking uphill will add to that, but there is no way to tell unless you know the exact % grade.

    MFP may be a little under, but your HRM is way over.

    I strongly disagree with your HRM as being way over, It is the only accurate way to tell calories burned. Have you programmed it with your max and min heart rates or just avg? People also forget that a heavier person actually burns more calories doing the same exercise, they need to look at it as if they were to strap on the extra weight. My HRM is always over to but I still only add MFP calories to be safe, I don't know if its correct but it has worked for me so far.

    The person who wrote that post, Azdak, has been in the fitness and exercise industry for many years. I would trust his vast knowledge of Heart Rate Monitors.

    Here's a great blog post of his: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
  • jhardenbergh
    jhardenbergh Posts: 1,035 Member
    At 4.0 mph, your calories burned per hour (on the flat) is roughly 4 times your body wt in KG. Walking uphill will add to that, but there is no way to tell unless you know the exact % grade.

    MFP may be a little under, but your HRM is way over.

    I strongly disagree with your HRM as being way over, It is the only accurate way to tell calories burned. Have you programmed it with your max and min heart rates or just avg? People also forget that a heavier person actually burns more calories doing the same exercise, they need to look at it as if they were to strap on the extra weight. My HRM is always over to but I still only add MFP calories to be safe, I don't know if its correct but it has worked for me so far.

    I did plug in my max hr which is 186 bpm, my resting hr is around 60. My only question is on MFP do those calories burned factor in each persons weight or is it just for whoever added the exercise
  • torregro
    torregro Posts: 307
    The next time you wear your heart monitor outside, be aware of it when you get near electrical sources, such as cell phone towers, power lines, etc. Mine is very accurate when I'm indoors, but certain areas outside will cause it to get over 200+ instantly and if I don't notice it, it really throws off the total calculation.
    Just something to think about if the rate seems unusually high.
    In the house, wearing it while at the laptop, near the phone or the electric lights does the same thing.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    At 4.0 mph, your calories burned per hour (on the flat) is roughly 4 times your body wt in KG. Walking uphill will add to that, but there is no way to tell unless you know the exact % grade.

    MFP may be a little under, but your HRM is way over.

    I strongly disagree with your HRM as being way over, It is the only accurate way to tell calories burned. Have you programmed it with your max and min heart rates or just avg? People also forget that a heavier person actually burns more calories doing the same exercise, they need to look at it as if they were to strap on the extra weight. My HRM is always over to but I still only add MFP calories to be safe, I don't know if its correct but it has worked for me so far.

    The person who wrote that post, Azdak, has been in the fitness and exercise industry for many years. I would trust his vast knowledge of Heart Rate Monitors.

    Here's a great blog post of his: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

    Here's another one that;s actually more relevant:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/calories-burned-during-exercise-it-s-the-intensity-not-the-heart-rate-that-counts-26524
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    At 4.0 mph, your calories burned per hour (on the flat) is roughly 4 times your body wt in KG. Walking uphill will add to that, but there is no way to tell unless you know the exact % grade.

    MFP may be a little under, but your HRM is way over.

    I strongly disagree with your HRM as being way over, It is the only accurate way to tell calories burned. Have you programmed it with your max and min heart rates or just avg? People also forget that a heavier person actually burns more calories doing the same exercise, they need to look at it as if they were to strap on the extra weight. My HRM is always over to but I still only add MFP calories to be safe, I don't know if its correct but it has worked for me so far.

    I did plug in my max hr which is 186 bpm, my resting hr is around 60. My only question is on MFP do those calories burned factor in each persons weight or is it just for whoever added the exercise

    To the best of my knowledge, MFP uses the weight that you entered (or updated) when estimating calories burned. That's one of the helpful tools--the ability to keep track of your data and draw from it when necessary.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    At 4.0 mph, your calories burned per hour (on the flat) is roughly 4 times your body wt in KG. Walking uphill will add to that, but there is no way to tell unless you know the exact % grade.

    MFP may be a little under, but your HRM is way over.

    I strongly disagree with your HRM as being way over, It is the only accurate way to tell calories burned. Have you programmed it with your max and min heart rates or just avg? People also forget that a heavier person actually burns more calories doing the same exercise, they need to look at it as if they were to strap on the extra weight. My HRM is always over to but I still only add MFP calories to be safe, I don't know if its correct but it has worked for me so far.

    I did plug in my max hr which is 186 bpm, my resting hr is around 60. My only question is on MFP do those calories burned factor in each persons weight or is it just for whoever added the exercise

    To the best of my knowledge, MFP uses the weight that you entered (or updated) when estimating calories burned. That's one of the helpful tools--the ability to keep track of your data and draw from it when necessary.
  • Jjames1978
    Jjames1978 Posts: 39 Member
    At 4.0 mph, your calories burned per hour (on the flat) is roughly 4 times your body wt in KG. Walking uphill will add to that, but there is no way to tell unless you know the exact % grade.

    MFP may be a little under, but your HRM is way over.

    I strongly disagree with your HRM as being way over, It is the only accurate way to tell calories burned. Have you programmed it with your max and min heart rates or just avg? People also forget that a heavier person actually burns more calories doing the same exercise, they need to look at it as if they were to strap on the extra weight. My HRM is always over to but I still only add MFP calories to be safe, I don't know if its correct but it has worked for me so far.

    The person who wrote that post, Azdak, has been in the fitness and exercise industry for many years. I would trust his vast knowledge of Heart Rate Monitors.

    Here's a great blog post of his: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472

    Well obviously I can't compete with that, I never claimed to be an expert or know it all, but I do believe it is more accurate then going off MFP wich is giving you a calorie burn for someone else. I think a 260# man walking up hill fairly briskly is for a half hour (2miles @ 4 mph) is closer to the 620 calorie mark then the 375 calorie mark. Again I said I am not an expert and that I go with the MFP calories to be safe anyway because I am not certain.
  • Jjames1978
    Jjames1978 Posts: 39 Member
    260lbs = 117.93kg
    117.93 x 4 = 471.72
    that is on the flat off of the formula, so add the unknown incline for 2/3 of the way that is only adding 150 calories for the incline, so if it was even half that it still would be closer. I think I would believe the HRM, myself. That is going off your own formula. The complexity of the whole thing makes it so much harder to understand and is one of the main reasons America is obese. I would like to believe MFP uses your weight to measure but they don't use anything else so how would it be more accurate. Livestrong also has a program that I believe calculates exercise a little better, because it asks avg heart rate distance and time included with your weight. Their food program just isn't as efficient. I am not arguing that their can be inaccuracies in a HRM it is an electronic device, but in today's modern world it is the most accurate tool we have. MFP at a 2lb a week loss puts you on a 1000cal/day deficit, so in all honesty a 100 calories is not a big enough issue to waste too much sleep over. That can be so much as a different in brands when entering your food.
  • jhardenbergh
    jhardenbergh Posts: 1,035 Member
    260lbs = 117.93kg
    117.93 x 4 = 471.72
    that is on the flat off of the formula, so add the unknown incline for 2/3 of the way that is only adding 150 calories for the incline, so if it was even half that it still would be closer. I think I would believe the HRM, myself. That is going off your own formula. The complexity of the whole thing makes it so much harder to understand and is one of the main reasons America is obese. I would like to believe MFP uses your weight to measure but they don't use anything else so how would it be more accurate. Livestrong also has a program that I believe calculates exercise a little better, because it asks avg heart rate distance and time included with your weight. Their food program just isn't as efficient. I am not arguing that their can be inaccuracies in a HRM it is an electronic device, but in today's modern world it is the most accurate tool we have. MFP at a 2lb a week loss puts you on a 1000cal/day deficit, so in all honesty a 100 calories is not a big enough issue to waste too much sleep over. That can be so much as a different in brands when entering your food.

    It wasn't a full hour, it was a little over a half hour. All I know is that I am exercising more than I ever did before and I never go over on calories so in the end it doesn't matter too much, but I was under the impression that the HRM's with strap tend to be more accurate, which is why I broke down and bought one. I guess I wasted a $100.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    260lbs = 117.93kg
    117.93 x 4 = 471.72
    that is on the flat off of the formula, so add the unknown incline for 2/3 of the way that is only adding 150 calories for the incline, so if it was even half that it still would be closer. I think I would believe the HRM, myself. That is going off your own formula. The complexity of the whole thing makes it so much harder to understand and is one of the main reasons America is obese. I would like to believe MFP uses your weight to measure but they don't use anything else so how would it be more accurate. Livestrong also has a program that I believe calculates exercise a little better, because it asks avg heart rate distance and time included with your weight. Their food program just isn't as efficient. I am not arguing that their can be inaccuracies in a HRM it is an electronic device, but in today's modern world it is the most accurate tool we have. MFP at a 2lb a week loss puts you on a 1000cal/day deficit, so in all honesty a 100 calories is not a big enough issue to waste too much sleep over. That can be so much as a different in brands when entering your food.

    When I made the first estimate, I was estimating weight off the ticker and the OP profile, so I was guessing 210lbs. I missed the 260 part. With the added info re the hills, then, yes, that does narrow the gap.

    The basic point is still the same: for familiar steady-state activities (walking, running, stationary cycling on a calibrated ergometer, stairclimbing w/out weight support), the established equations for predicting energy expenditure are well-established and, overall, estimates that use those equations will be more accurate than HRMs.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    260lbs = 117.93kg
    117.93 x 4 = 471.72
    that is on the flat off of the formula, so add the unknown incline for 2/3 of the way that is only adding 150 calories for the incline, so if it was even half that it still would be closer. I think I would believe the HRM, myself. That is going off your own formula. The complexity of the whole thing makes it so much harder to understand and is one of the main reasons America is obese. I would like to believe MFP uses your weight to measure but they don't use anything else so how would it be more accurate. Livestrong also has a program that I believe calculates exercise a little better, because it asks avg heart rate distance and time included with your weight. Their food program just isn't as efficient. I am not arguing that their can be inaccuracies in a HRM it is an electronic device, but in today's modern world it is the most accurate tool we have. MFP at a 2lb a week loss puts you on a 1000cal/day deficit, so in all honesty a 100 calories is not a big enough issue to waste too much sleep over. That can be so much as a different in brands when entering your food.

    It wasn't a full hour, it was a little over a half hour. All I know is that I am exercising more than I ever did before and I never go over on calories so in the end it doesn't matter too much, but I was under the impression that the HRM's with strap tend to be more accurate, which is why I broke down and bought one. I guess I wasted a $100.

    Not necessarily. In this case, I misread your weight, so your HRM number was actually the better one.

    So you get to beat me up on that one. :tongue:
  • jhardenbergh
    jhardenbergh Posts: 1,035 Member
    260lbs = 117.93kg
    117.93 x 4 = 471.72
    that is on the flat off of the formula, so add the unknown incline for 2/3 of the way that is only adding 150 calories for the incline, so if it was even half that it still would be closer. I think I would believe the HRM, myself. That is going off your own formula. The complexity of the whole thing makes it so much harder to understand and is one of the main reasons America is obese. I would like to believe MFP uses your weight to measure but they don't use anything else so how would it be more accurate. Livestrong also has a program that I believe calculates exercise a little better, because it asks avg heart rate distance and time included with your weight. Their food program just isn't as efficient. I am not arguing that their can be inaccuracies in a HRM it is an electronic device, but in today's modern world it is the most accurate tool we have. MFP at a 2lb a week loss puts you on a 1000cal/day deficit, so in all honesty a 100 calories is not a big enough issue to waste too much sleep over. That can be so much as a different in brands when entering your food.

    It wasn't a full hour, it was a little over a half hour. All I know is that I am exercising more than I ever did before and I never go over on calories so in the end it doesn't matter too much, but I was under the impression that the HRM's with strap tend to be more accurate, which is why I broke down and bought one. I guess I wasted a $100.

    Not necessarily. In this case, I misread your weight, so your HRM number was actually the better one.

    So you get to beat me up on that one. :tongue:

    there will be no beating up, I appreciate your response as well as all the others, thanks all
This discussion has been closed.

Categories