How accurate is a HRM for Calories Burned?

Options
Epimoni87
Epimoni87 Posts: 7 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Does anyone know if a HRM is an accurate measure of calories burned? It always seems kind of high to me - usually 50-100 calories over what MFP tells me I should be getting for my exercising. I mainly walk and jog. Is it better to use my HRM calories or MFP? (I use a Polar monitor with a chest strap and I think it gives me a pretty accurate HR?)

Replies

  • bprague
    bprague Posts: 564 Member
    Options
    I also am having that issue with my Polar FT6. It gives me a calories count quite a bit higher than MFP. Honestly, I don't know which is best and I would say that lower is a better bet... but I found I was woozy after my runs and I suppose that shows that I should follow what the polar said. Best of luck!
  • Broken_
    Broken_ Posts: 172 Member
    Options
    From the research I've done it seems most are VERY ACCURATE, but you need to stick with a decent HRM. As I said in an earlier post avoid Timex. The Polar FT series seem to be very popular and accurate.
  • JPayne53
    JPayne53 Posts: 235 Member
    Options
    Bump!! I'm usually over by like 350-400 Cals!! I know something isn't right either.... I've been taking an average of what MFP says and my HRM says... not sure if that's the way to go, I too would love more info on this topic!!
  • Broken_
    Broken_ Posts: 172 Member
    Options
    Keep in mind ... MFP is a general guess by your stats.. It's not actually reading you.

    The HRM is going to be much more accurate.
  • seadog1
    seadog1 Posts: 86 Member
    Options
    I expect there is a lot of room for error, that differant people of the same weight use quite a bit more or less calories then each other. I would expect a person with more muscles would use less calories then a person that has less muscles.
  • kappyd
    kappyd Posts: 199 Member
    Options
    My polar HRM gives me a way lower calorie burn then MFP, sometimes by a couple of hundred calories. Also don't forget to subtract your resting calories from the total that the MFP gives you.
  • TC41
    TC41 Posts: 5
    Options
    The chest strap I was told is very good, and the other thing you are asking I have no idea about do not know what those initials stand for.:happy:
  • Epimoni87
    Epimoni87 Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    Thanks everyone! I usually just go with the lower - I figure I'll lose weight faster :). Oh and MFP is "my fitness pal calories"

    @bprague: If you are feeling woozy, I'd definitely slow down! With this heat, I have to jog much slower to keep my HR in a healthy zone than I normally would if it was cooler outside :)
  • KyleGA
    KyleGA Posts: 309 Member
    Options
    Keep in mind ... MFP is a general guess by your stats.. It's not actually reading you.

    The HRM is going to be much more accurate.

    ^^^^^^^^
    This! A HRM will be far more accurate (especially one with a chest strap) than what MFP can calculate for you.
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    Options
    If its got a chest strap and has your age, gender, height, weight and VO2Max(if it allows for that) then it will be pretty accurate.

    MFP has most of that info too, but it doesn't know how hard your working.. it doesn't know that you may have taken a 10 min break in the middle of your workout, and your HRM does.

    Most people are shocked by the calorie difference and then question it...and bottom line is, nothing is accurate when it comes to calories burned.. everything is an estimate, even an HRM.
  • hylander22
    hylander22 Posts: 1 Member
    Options
    Just found this and said I'd share it.

    http://www.heartratemonitor.co.uk/heart_rate_monitor_faq.html

    I've cut out the piece of interest cos there is a lot of info on the website.


    Calorie burn using a heart rate monitor?

    Polar and most CV equipment manufacturers use a calorie algorithm that is INCLUSIVE of your metabolic rate calories.... i.e. calories burnt in TOTAL during exercise (including those you would have burnt if not exercising).

    Timex, Oregon Scientific and a couple of other HRM manufacturers give calories burnt IN EXCESS of normal metabolic calorie expenditure. i.e extra calories burnt due to exercise.

    If an average person burns 2500 calories per day, as a base calorie burn, that is about 150-200 per hour through non-exercise. This is incorporated in to the Polar algorithm, but ignored by many others like Oregon Scientific.

    Also, many HRM only start accurately calculating calories when the HR is above 100 or even 120 bpm. The new Polar F series has an improved calorie formula that works down to about 80 bpm.

    HOWEVER... if worn throughout a sedentary working day, the calories burnt will generally be inflated. They are best used to show exercise burnt calories, while exercising, when HR is over 100 bpm.

    Hope that makes sense. The main thing to remember is that your HRM, whichever make.model, is CONSISTENT, so you can compare from one session to the next.
  • RUNN3Rmom
    RUNN3Rmom Posts: 441
    Options
    My HRM is opposite. It is always about 50-100 less than MFP says. I go by my HRM but man, it stinks when I see MFP saying 250 and my HRM saying 175 :( Blah! I have a Polar F-something w/chest strap.
  • FairyMiss
    FairyMiss Posts: 1,812 Member
    Options
    i have a polar ft7 and my cals burn on there is oddly low. (see my post insanity confused) so i am kinda regretting the money i spent on it now. and yes it has a chest strap and as far as i can tell the settings are right (went through it with the booklet 3 times)

    on the other hand its less cals i have to eat back

Categories