HRM Users-Just how off is MFP on estimating your calories bu

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
edited October 3 in Health and Weight Loss
So, if you use a HRM please enlighten me on the magnitude of the overestimation of calories burned on MFP. I am getting a HRM soon, actually it's coming in the mail and I'm just curious what your experiences have been.

Are there some activities that you burn more than is predicted? Less than predicted? which ones?

Thanks :)
«1

Replies

  • rebsaganes
    rebsaganes Posts: 112 Member
    I have found I burn more walking & training than mfp states. Less in the water, swimming, etc than mfp states. It's really helped me not eat too many exercise calories and my weight loss has been more steady with the accuracy of my hrm.
  • sylouette98
    sylouette98 Posts: 65 Member
    For me, the estimation is usually pretty close to what I burn according to my HRM. But I would guess that it depends on how hard you push yourself. If you're dogging it, you're not going to burn as much as the estimate on MFP.
  • jrich1
    jrich1 Posts: 2,408 Member
    I found MFP is usually WAY over what my HRM says
  • godroxmysox
    godroxmysox Posts: 1,491 Member
    Before I got my HRM, I was logging an hour of cardio kickboxing...MFP had it at 735, but my HRM said it was only 450, OUCH!
  • rthompson81
    rthompson81 Posts: 305 Member
    It depends on the exercise... Biking is usually accurate within 10 calories (for me), but walking and running I burn more than what MFP says. Swimming I burn less.
  • jersgirl060606
    jersgirl060606 Posts: 27 Member
    MFP way overestimates calories especially for women. I do Turbo Jam and it estimates 680+ calories for a 45 minute workout and my HRM says I burn around 320 calories. I was going off of the MFP estimates and eating back my calories and did not loose anything. I workout at a higher than moderate pace for the entire time and still only burn half of the estimate. Also, when I hike it estimates much higher than my actual burn according to my HRM.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    from what I have seen MFP is between 25% under your actual burn up to being over by 50-60%. It is quite a wide range and depends on HRM and brand as well as your fitness level. If you use a Timex most likely MFP will be close, if you use Polar MFP typically over estimates the burn by 0-50ish %. The more fit you are the more MFP will over estimate vs the HRM.
  • DinaLKeil
    DinaLKeil Posts: 95 Member
    I have found I burn more walking & training than mfp states. Less in the water, swimming, etc than mfp states. It's really helped me not eat too many exercise calories and my weight loss has been more steady with the accuracy of my hrm.

    I also have found my HRM saying my calorie burn is higher than MFP states. I do the elliptical a lot and it can be by 200-400 calories if I do 60 minutes. It's a little less with walking/jogging but HRM still says more burn than MFP. I'm not sure which is closer but I take the lower one and keep the rest as a secret "cushion" in case I underestimate in food.
  • AggieHoss
    AggieHoss Posts: 30 Member
    I've got a BodyBugg and have only had it for 5 days, but it is telling me that I am burning more than what MFP tells me. I'm still using the MFP number and banking the extra burned calories. I was afraid MFP would be overestimating, but for me it is not. In 5 days it is approximately 20% lower than what the BB is registering.
  • catodd
    catodd Posts: 37 Member
    I use a HRM regularly for running and bike riding. I find that for me the mfp information always comes out on the low side quite significantly. For instance if i do a 6 mile run in around 40 mins HRM records 948cals whereas MFP will come outat least 25% lower than that. It does say if you use a HRM to disregard their figure and use the HRM though.
  • kendrafallon
    kendrafallon Posts: 1,030 Member
    Before I got my HRM, I was logging an hour of cardio kickboxing...MFP had it at 735, but my HRM said it was only 450, OUCH!
    I had something similar for Tae Kwon Do, with MFP having it at 900+ for an hour, when with HRM it was around 350 mark - thankfully I've never been in the habit of eating my exercise calories!!
    It depends on the exercise...
    I agree - walking for me is pretty much spot on, but with Aerobics it's way out.
  • Marig0ld
    Marig0ld Posts: 671 Member
    I have a Polar FT4. I found that MFP tends to overestimate for the elliptical and circuit training, but underestimates for running, brisk walking, and stationary bike. Somestimes with aerobics as well. HRMs are soooo worth it, in my opinion!
  • bethdris
    bethdris Posts: 1,090 Member
    MFP over estimates my cal burn for everything...thankfully I have an HRM!
  • BeachGurl815
    BeachGurl815 Posts: 295 Member
    I have a Polar FT7 and I notice that MFP estimates way over on calories for almost all cardio workouts I do. The one with the closest estimation is walking everything else is way over.
  • amberwebb79
    amberwebb79 Posts: 113 Member
    My HRM shows more calories burned, for example, MFP will say something like 176 for two miles, and HRM will say around 220 (this is for running).
  • stephyy4632
    stephyy4632 Posts: 947 Member
    depends on the exercise

    eliptical I burn more acording to my HRM

    jogging I burn more

    heavy bag slightly less than mfp gave

    walking was just about right (for the 3.0 walk)

    outside running I burned alot more than what mfp gave me

    zumba I burned more then the mfp suggested
  • TriumphNow
    TriumphNow Posts: 526 Member
    MFP is way over calories burned compared to my HRM, except for walking. I asked a lot people before I bought my HRM and everyone said the ones with chest strap are more accurate. I have a Sport line with chest strap. I had to get used to working it but so far so good...it's been about 3 weeks. I used only MFP calories burned for about 8 months and I still lost weight but I usually don't eat all my exercise calories. Since we don't know exactly which HRM is really the best, it might take a little trial and error to find what works best for you.
  • alyssamiller77
    alyssamiller77 Posts: 891 Member
    I've found MFP under-estimates on some things and over estimates on others. Also, so much of it depends on my own intensity during the cardio activity. I've learned to recognize how hard I'm working and I usually adjust the MFP estimates accordingly.
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    I've got a BodyBugg and have only had it for 5 days, but it is telling me that I am burning more than what MFP tells me. I'm still using the MFP number and banking the extra burned calories. I was afraid MFP would be overestimating, but for me it is not. In 5 days it is approximately 20% lower than what the BB is registering.

    I had a BB for about 9 months and stopped using it because I found that it grossly overestimated my calories burned...it would be as high as 2700-3000 most days and if I ate that much I'd surely wind up about 50 pounds heavier in 6 months. No bueno. If it works for you great, but be cautious. Explore the BB forums to see what others say about it so that you can gauge how you want to interpret the calories burned given by the BB.
  • maura5880
    maura5880 Posts: 346 Member
    When walking, I burn more than what MFP says, but a LOT less on the elliptical. I love my HRM, and having better accuracy on calories burned. (HRM is also different from what the machines say..)
  • iwillsoonbeslim
    iwillsoonbeslim Posts: 283
    I find it really odd...my main exercise is walking (miles and miles and mountains) and sometimes MFP is WAY under, and sometimes hugely over. It's really strange. Today I just did a wee 3.5 mile fast walk with the dog, pretty much all level, but at a very brisk pace, and my HRM recorded 579 cals burned, whilst MFP suggested only 225!
  • Erica0718
    Erica0718 Posts: 469 Member
    I have the Polar FT60 and have found it varies by exercise, most of the time MFP is slightly over what my HRM says. However when I ride my bike MFP is under, but I bike hard. I always find it interesting what my number is vs the number on the website.
  • riley711
    riley711 Posts: 298 Member
    It just depends. Many of the exercises in the database were added by other users, so I think the calories burned was based on their initial inputs. When I first started, I relied solely on MFP numbers but I would adjust them up or down based on how hard I pushed myself. Walking numbers were pretty close, but most others were really high. That's why I'm glad I never ate all my exercise calories.:smile:
  • Elizabeth_C34
    Elizabeth_C34 Posts: 6,376 Member
    I burn almost 2x as many calories as MFP says when I run according to my HRM. It's way off.
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    I have a Polar FT4. I found that MFP tends to overestimate for the elliptical and circuit training, but underestimates for running, brisk walking, and stationary bike. Somestimes with aerobics as well. HRMs are soooo worth it, in my opinion!

    ooooh I like this response because I use mfp estimates for exercise bike almost everyday :-) Hopefully I am burning more ;)
  • FaithHopeBELIEVE
    FaithHopeBELIEVE Posts: 626
    Thankyou for posting this! Now I feel better buying the HRM!
  • iuangina
    iuangina Posts: 691 Member
    MFP is about 20% higher than what my HRM says I'm burning on pretty much all activities.
  • marianne_s
    marianne_s Posts: 983 Member
    I've got a BodyBugg and have only had it for 5 days, but it is telling me that I am burning more than what MFP tells me. I'm still using the MFP number and banking the extra burned calories. I was afraid MFP would be overestimating, but for me it is not. In 5 days it is approximately 20% lower than what the BB is registering.

    I had a BB for about 9 months and stopped using it because I found that it grossly overestimated my calories burned...it would be as high as 2700-3000 most days and if I ate that much I'd surely wind up about 50 pounds heavier in 6 months. No bueno. If it works for you great, but be cautious. Explore the BB forums to see what others say about it so that you can gauge how you want to interpret the calories burned given by the BB.

    Was that 2700-3000 caloriesfor the whole day?
    Then that sounds about right to me - this amount consists of your BMR + daily activity, which equals your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure).You don't & shouldn't need to eat all or some of those calories - you're supposed to eat to a deficit.

    I have a KiFit (UK's version of the BodyMedia Fit) - on the days I don't exercise my TDEE is around 2600-2700, and on the days I do it's 3000-3500 calories.
  • Timdog57
    Timdog57 Posts: 102 Member
    I don't think you should assume that your HRM is more accurate than MFP for calories burned. HRM's cannot do a good job of estimating calories burned for anything other than steady state cardio. Your HRM may dramatically over-estimate calories burned for things like strength training, or interval training. In my case the overestimation is 100-200%, and I have a high quality HRM (Polar FT7).
  • mjshmily
    mjshmily Posts: 137 Member
    I use a cardio tracker app as well and was finding MFP was giving way higher calorie burns for walking...until I adjusted my cardio tracker to use my correct weight and because it was significantly heavier than the default suddenly my calorie burn jumped up and was higher than what MFP suggested.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories