HRM vs. MFP vs. Machine = Confused

Brooke1542
Brooke1542 Posts: 115 Member
edited October 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
I've been working out for awhile and am confused on how many calories I'm actually burning. I've been wearing a heart rate monitor pretty consistently but I get a huge difference in what it shows burned compared to MFP and the cardio machines. For example, yesterday I ran for about 45 minutes and when I was done my HRM said that I had burned 1220 calories, but when I put it into MFP is said 538. Another example is on the elliptical, I usually do intervals for 60 minutes, alternating 2 minutes on level 9 and 2 minutes on level 15, and the machine says that I'm burning around 800, MFP says 645 and the HRM is around 1000.

I feel like my HRM is showing too high, but I've heard that they are supposed to be the most accurate. I know I do have a fast heart rate, even my resting heart rate is faster than the average person, but I wouldn't think it would make that much of a difference. The type of HRM that I have is a timex.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Replies

  • Chydi
    Chydi Posts: 5 Member
    As long as you set your heart rate monitor up correctly, i.e. your age, weight, etc, it will be the most accurate.
  • luvmycandies
    luvmycandies Posts: 489 Member
    I agree..i find the same thing. MFP and especially machines over estimate. But the HRM is most accurate. I agree with the above, check the settings and make sure it is set up correctly.
  • wbgolden
    wbgolden Posts: 2,066 Member
    As long as you set your heart rate monitor up correctly, i.e. your age, weight, etc, it will be the most accurate.
  • Brooke1542
    Brooke1542 Posts: 115 Member
    I'll check and make sure that all of my information is correct, but I'm pretty sure it is. Is it normal to burn 1000+ calories in about an hour doing cardio? That just seems like a lot to me, and from what I had heard from other people on here, it was usually MFP that showed a higher calorie burn, but mine is opposite.
  • Jaimet09
    Jaimet09 Posts: 75
    I have found that machines are rarely accurate for me, and MFP would only give you an average of what people would burn doing that exercise, so you can be quite different. When I run for 45 mins, I will usually burn almost exactly 500 cals. I have a Garmin heart rate monitor, and find it to be really accurate. I don't know much about Timex branded ones...Maybe google what that brand is like? Does that brand have a strap around your body? Polar branded ones are meant to be pretty accurate. I think the quality of the HRM will greatly affect the results. Also, make sure you have entered all your stats in to the monitor as well. Good luck! I would tend to go with the lower amounts suggested by MFP than the really high ones of your particular monitor, but that is just me :)
  • Brooke1542
    Brooke1542 Posts: 115 Member
    It does have the strap that goes around my chest. And when I read the reviews about it before I bought it they were all good and said that it was pretty accurate.

    I usually go with the lower of the bunch, but 500 calories is a huge difference. I don't usually eat back too many of my exercise calories, but if I do go over I would like to know how many I am working with. LOL
  • donrdon
    donrdon Posts: 216 Member
    I have to agree with you 1200 calories seem high. I'll run for about 35 minutes (aprox. 3.5 miles) and my Garmin puts me around 450 calories. I have had to adjust weight as I lose, i've found as I lose I burn less calories. So inputting correctly and updating your info is really important for accuracy.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories