HRM/ Calories burned

Options
kated930
kated930 Posts: 132
in Fitness and Exercise
So I just got a heart rate monitor and I've been using it to train for running purposes, but of course I've been looking at the calories burned. I noticed they are higher than what MFP has listed, which makes me a little skeptical.

Has anyone else found this? Which one would you think would be more correct?

Replies

  • _SusieQ_
    _SusieQ_ Posts: 2,964 Member
    Options
    My HRM shows a higher burn on some exercises and lower on others compared to MFP. The HRM should be the most accurate as it is going off your actual heart rate vs MFP which is an estimate. I always use the HRM calorie burns. If you are concerned they are too high, just don't eat back ALL your exercise calories. But in my opinion (and it's just an opinion) I would trust the HRM.
  • charityateet
    charityateet Posts: 576 Member
    Options
    My HRM tells me I've burned more than MFP does and also my treamil which is set to my gender/weight/age. I don't know what I believe......I'd like to know what others think about this too.

    Right now, I'm just eating back 1/2 or so of the cals burnt - not really because of the HRM, but because I've been stuck for 6 weeks and need a change up.
  • hels4397
    hels4397 Posts: 100 Member
    Options
    What HRM did you get? Did it require you to program your height/weight/gender/age? Does it have a chest strap? If you answered yes to those questions, then based on what I've read your HRM is accurate, and go with that. It tailors your results to you personally.

    MFP is an average estimate, which means in some cases it'll be higher than it should be for you, and some cases lower - especially because not everyone burns the same amount of calories doing the same things..
  • TMcBooty
    TMcBooty Posts: 780 Member
    Options
    I would trust your HRM.. assuming you entered all the right info into it :)
  • pa_jorg
    pa_jorg Posts: 4,404 Member
    Options
    I use an HRM too and mine is always lower than MFP's calorie count. I have a Polar FT4.
  • kcsmomma
    kcsmomma Posts: 5
    Options
    I t hink my Heart Rate Monitor is more accurate because I have it set for my individual height, weight, and age. I would think MFP averages are just that. Averages.

    My level of intensity may be more than what someone else doing the same 30 min. brisk walk maybe. Therefore, I love love love my HRM because I feel it is definitely MORE accurate!!!

    Hope this helps ya!
  • alaw1119
    alaw1119 Posts: 68 Member
    Options
    Yep when I first got my HRM I compared it to MFP and on some things it would be way low and others it would be way high. The HRM is definitely more accurate!
  • Tereztaylor07
    Tereztaylor07 Posts: 200
    Options
    I have a polar FT7 and so far my HRM cals and MFP cals are surprisingly close to one another. But I always use the HRM cals.
  • Coltsman4ever
    Coltsman4ever Posts: 602 Member
    Options
    I would trust your HRM.. assuming you entered all the right info into it :)

    Ditto... your HRM measures your heart rate and calculates your burn accordingly. MFP guesstimates based on averages. Trust your HRM.
  • emmabeckemeyer1
    emmabeckemeyer1 Posts: 298 Member
    Options
    What kind of heart rate monitor do you have?

    HRM is much more accurate than this site. Some activities I burn a lot more and others less.
  • melanie3103
    melanie3103 Posts: 246 Member
    Options
    Hi,

    Mine too. Differing results..

    The stationary bike - the HRM has it higher than the machine.
    Elliptical trainer - the HRM has it lower slightly or often SPOT ON !

    So... I too, tend to stick to my HRM, as someone said here - it has a chest strap AND is calculating based on my gender, age, weight etc etc - which the machines in the gym don't (well not on all programmes do anyway).

    So it MUST be more accurate, but again I don't eat back my cals (well only a few of them)...
    Mel
  • lrichardson2360
    lrichardson2360 Posts: 225 Member
    Options
    Same here!
  • _SusieQ_
    _SusieQ_ Posts: 2,964 Member
    Options
    Good points that others made here, make sure you have it set correctly with your age, weight, etc. I lost 20 lbs and never changed mine, I just forgot. Then when I finally remembered and made the change to my settings, I could definitely tell it made a difference.
  • sisa2324
    sisa2324 Posts: 164 Member
    Options
    My hrm gets inaccurate readings when i'm on a machine, like a treadmill. If you notice your heart rate going really high (mine goes to 215) then you are probably getting interference from something, therefore calories burned are inaccurate.
  • kated930
    kated930 Posts: 132
    Options
    I have the Timex Ironman HRM that has a chest strap, and I put in my age and weight to program it.

    I find the same thing, for the eliptical, it is usually lower than what the actual machine says, but when I go for a 5 mile run, MFP's calories burned is always so much lower than what my HRM reads!

    Thanks for the advice, for now I think I'll trust my HRM
  • mhaynes96
    mhaynes96 Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    I always find that my HRM is higher than MFP, except on the elliptical and then it is nearly identical. But part of it may be that I am not quite sure how to input certain exercises. Like, should nightclub cardio/zumba be considered dancing or aerobics? high impact or low impact?

    Generally, I just go ahead and use MFP for my daily calculations - better to be lower than higher!

Categories