HRM vs MFP calorie burn

imworthit
imworthit Posts: 165 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I ran 10.15 miles today at a 9:30 pace. It took me 96 minutes. My Polar heart rate monitor showed I burned 720 calories. MFP doesn't have a 9:30 pace, so I chose the 10 minute mile pace (slower than I had run) and it said I burned 907 calories. That is a big difference to be off! I am going to rely on my HRM all the time. If I ate all the exercise calories MFP said I should, I would always be over eating!

Replies

  • thepetiterunner
    thepetiterunner Posts: 1,238 Member
    Yep :) Enlightening, isn't it?
  • 81Katz
    81Katz Posts: 7,074 Member
    MFP way over estimates their calories burned. When I see people on here say they burned 1000+ calories and using MFP to calculate it I can't help but think ... that's wayyyy off. I agree that most people are probably over-eating if they rely soley on MFP to calculate their calories for them.

    A HRM with a chest strap is a must. :smile:
  • igogirl
    igogirl Posts: 1 Member
    MFP definitely over estimates in general but you will even find discrepancies between different brands of HRM. I always underestimate my calories to compensate it’s tricky.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,401 Member
    Now that's a zombie thread bump!

    While some of the new devices use formulas that learn much better and seem to be more accurate your heart rate is really not an accurate measure of power. For that reason without extra inputs most devices don't measure that well.

    Studies on the matter tend to lean towards the below formula or something very close to it....

    .63 x weight x miles run = net calorie burn

Categories