Difference between HRM and MFP calculations

Options
Eliza1980
Eliza1980 Posts: 303 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
So I just used my Polar FT2 for the first time. I used this website (which I found recommended on MFP) http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm to calculate how many calories I burned. I calculated that I burned 622 while MFP said I only burned 410. I wasn't expecting such a big difference. Anyone else have this happen? And before you ask, my HRM has a chest strap!
«1

Replies

  • AlsDonkBoxSquat
    AlsDonkBoxSquat Posts: 6,128 Member
    Options
    MFP calculations are based off of what someone else has put in and their experience, not based off of your body, your work out, your hr.
  • julwills
    julwills Posts: 286 Member
    Options
    I had the opposite happen. MFP said I burned over 800 cals during an hour of zumba and my HRM says I burn about 650
  • jrich1
    jrich1 Posts: 2,408 Member
    Options
    I always find MFP to be WAAAAAY off from what my HRM says.. I have a Polar FT7
  • loriannmartin
    loriannmartin Posts: 209 Member
    Options
    mfp always says i burn more than my hrm... i have a watch one....
  • AlsDonkBoxSquat
    AlsDonkBoxSquat Posts: 6,128 Member
    Options
    To add, I'm not really sure how that website you posted is working. Generally when you are more fit you burn less calories, but when I put in my starting stats and my current stats with the same hr and other out puts it showed I burn more at my 25 pound lighter weight. This makes me skeptical.

    current:
    128
    33
    175
    0
    759.34

    starting:
    150
    33
    175
    0
    741.23
  • Countrymade
    Countrymade Posts: 183 Member
    Options
    I have a Polar too. Sometimes MFP are more sometimes less.
    I would go with your HRM and not pay attention to MFP.
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    Options
    The Polar FT2 does not calculate calories, so I'm a bit confused as to how you are calculating calories with that HRM.

    Any website(MFP or the one that you mentioned) only use estimates based off of your information. Since MFP does not know your heart rate or intensity, it's prob. not that accurate. The website that you mentioned, if you put your heart rate into it, it would be a bit more accurate I suppose but it's still a estimate.

    I have the Polar FT7 and MFP is always different from what my HRM says but not by much.. maybe like 20 calories or so for walking. I don't even compare for my personal training sessions, mainly because I don't know what to classify them as exactly and I just created my own exercise.
  • Bumblebee26
    Bumblebee26 Posts: 118 Member
    Options
    Mine is coming up to about ~5 calorie swings based on various sites and MFP , which I don't think is to bad. I know the HR on it is good, because I've had a nurse check it several times and it is pretty dead on. I'm going to test it with some machines tonight at work and see what it says. I've only been using it since last night and today. It is a Sportline SX universal Combo with ECG HRM.
  • meghan1966
    meghan1966 Posts: 13
    Options
    Your HRM should be accurate if it is one that will calculate calories burned. I have a Garmin fitness watch and had to input my height, weight, lifetime activity level, etc. When I do the elliptical at the gym, my HRM consistently tells me I burn 75-100+ LESS than what the elliptical says. Trust your HRM, it is more accurate.
  • Eliza1980
    Eliza1980 Posts: 303 Member
    Options
    The Polar FT2 does not calculate calories, so I'm a bit confused as to how you are calculating calories with that HRM.

    Any website(MFP or the one that you mentioned) only use estimates based off of your information. Since MFP does not know your heart rate or intensity, it's prob. not that accurate. The website that you mentioned, if you put your heart rate into it, it would be a bit more accurate I suppose but it's still a estimate.

    I have the Polar FT7 and MFP is always different from what my HRM says but not by much.. maybe like 20 calories or so for walking. I don't even compare for my personal training sessions, mainly because I don't know what to classify them as exactly and I just created my own exercise.

    The FT2 calculates my average HR and the website asked for my gender,age, weight, length of workout, and average HR
  • Teemo
    Teemo Posts: 338
    Options
    I'd trust the heart rate monitor over the MFP calculator, but I'd go by my results over anything else. Not losing weight? Reduce the number of calories. Losing too much weight? Increase the number of calories.
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    Options
    The Polar FT2 does not calculate calories, so I'm a bit confused as to how you are calculating calories with that HRM.

    Any website(MFP or the one that you mentioned) only use estimates based off of your information. Since MFP does not know your heart rate or intensity, it's prob. not that accurate. The website that you mentioned, if you put your heart rate into it, it would be a bit more accurate I suppose but it's still a estimate.

    I have the Polar FT7 and MFP is always different from what my HRM says but not by much.. maybe like 20 calories or so for walking. I don't even compare for my personal training sessions, mainly because I don't know what to classify them as exactly and I just created my own exercise.

    The FT2 calculates my average HR and the website asked for my gender,age, weight, length of workout, and average HR

    If it asked for most of you're info then it's prob. pretty accurate, but I'd still take the readings with a grain of salt and not eat back all those calories.
  • phillukasz
    phillukasz Posts: 7
    Options
    Got this formula that are the basis for calories burnt, I have put it into an excel spread sheet, just put in age, weight, BPM, and duration. Most accurate formula I've found, just wack in the numbers and it calculates this formula, and yo can add on other workouts. I train twice a day, and it adds them all up.If ya want it it's yours. phil (email me and I'll send...... phillukasz@yahoo.com)

    There is a mans version and Female

    Here is the Men's Formula -> ((Age x 0.2017) + (Weight x 0.09036) + (Heart Rate x 0.6309) -- 55.0969) x Duration / 4.184 = Calories Burned (Kcals.)

    This is the guys, but if ya want the Girls one, I can just plug in the girly numbers, simple to alter. Yep those guys at Polar kept that one quiet about the FT2. Not telling you what you want to know, I've got one myself

    Regards phil
  • phillukasz
    phillukasz Posts: 7
    Options
    Got this formula that are the basis for calories burnt, I have put it into an excel spread sheet, just put in age, weight, BPM, and duration. Most accurate formula I've found, just wack in the numbers and it calculates this formula, and yo can add on other workouts. I train twice a day, and it adds them all up.If ya want it it's yours. phil (email me and I'll send...... phillukasz@yahoo.com)

    There is a mans version and Female

    Here is the Mens Formula -> ((Age x 0.2017) + (Weight x 0.09036) + (Heart Rate x 0.6309) -- 55.0969) x Duration / 4.184 = Calories Burned (Kcals.) yep you don't want to add this up daily.

    This is the guys, but if ya want the Girls one, I can just plug in the girly numbers, simple to alter, and send it to you.. Yep those guys at Polar kept that one quiet about the FT2. Not telling you what you want to know, I've got one myself

    Regards phil
  • phillukasz
    phillukasz Posts: 7
    Options
    Great for tablets and smart phones, can link it to all sorts, graphs the lot.
  • phillukasz
    phillukasz Posts: 7
    Options
    Nice... and a little scarey, but nice.
  • dondimitri
    dondimitri Posts: 245 Member
    Options
    phillukasz,
    I'm guessing that the duration number is in minutes?
    Thanks.

    Edit: If I got the parentheses in the right place (always a challenge) I got 651 calories for the following input data:
    age 64
    weight 170
    avg hr 110
    duration 60 minutes
  • phillukasz
    phillukasz Posts: 7
    Options
    Yep
  • phillukasz
    phillukasz Posts: 7
    Options
    Do ya want the girls set up, plus or minus a few cals, better than most of the watches out there some are built in China, and you can save it daily to keep a record.
  • dondimitri
    dondimitri Posts: 245 Member
    Options
    oops I mean about 610 calories... rusty spreadsheet skills...

Categories