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

2»

Replies

  • HMonsterX
    HMonsterX Posts: 3,000 Member
    A lot of it depends on the activity you do. For me, Badminton Competitive, it used to WAY overestimate. I mean, does the MFP count it as single or doubles? Does it account for time between point? Time between games? etc etc. If i play singles for the majority of my 2 hours, my HRM says its about 1500. Doubles its around 800. MFP says its like 1800 every time.

    But I've noticed that since I've been changing it to what my HRM says, it tends to remember the changes, and works it out from previous inputs.
  • HMonsterX
    HMonsterX Posts: 3,000 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).

    By nature, the HRM WILL be more accurate, as it takes your constant heartrate. Sure, nothing we can afford will be 100% accurate, so a HRM is the nearest we can get. They CAN do a good job, depending on your definition of "good". To me, good is 70-80% accurate, a much better estimate than either MFP or the machines built in calorie counter.
  • stormieweather
    stormieweather Posts: 2,549 Member
    Running is pretty much the same but the other cardio exercises, MFP is way high. Since discovering this, I've recommended that people eat only a portion of their exercise calories unless they're certain of their burn.
  • Timdog57
    Timdog57 Posts: 102 Member

    By nature, the HRM WILL be more accurate, as it takes your constant heartrate. Sure, nothing we can afford will be 100% accurate, so a HRM is the nearest we can get. They CAN do a good job, depending on your definition of "good". To me, good is 70-80% accurate, a much better estimate than either MFP or the machines built in calorie counter.

    I completely agree that it depends on your definition of "good", which is why I'm bringing up the fact that your HRM will not be anywhere close when doing activities like strength training in particular. If you are looking to estimate your calories burned for strength training, you should know that an HRM will be WAY off. This is something I didn't fully understand till after I purchased a HRM, and I wish I would have known it before I purchased a HRM.
  • Shannonigans84
    Shannonigans84 Posts: 693 Member
    I haven't tried my HRM (Polar FT7) on exercise equipment, but when I go for a 30 minute brisk walk my HRM calculates 282 calories. MFP calculates 185. If I do an aerobic workout DVD for 30 minutes, my HRM says 372. MFP calculates general aerobics at 240 calories for the same amount of time. I have my HRM fine tuned the best I can, I've checked and re-checked. I'm skeptical because of the huge difference, but I push myself and my average heart rate is in the 150s, maxing out at 178. I hope it's acurate for me, this piece of equipment was spendy!
  • dbanks80
    dbanks80 Posts: 3,685 Member
    I've never relied on MFP calories burned. I've always had a HRM and solely rely on that.
  • brk_1982
    brk_1982 Posts: 125 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..)

    Can I piggy-back on the original post and the above and ask how different the HRMs are from the machines?
  • iuangina
    iuangina Posts: 691 Member
    My HRM is about 25% less than what the machines say unless the machine picks up the signal from my chest strap and then it is pretty close to the same.
  • Enginette
    Enginette Posts: 123 Member
    A HRM is truly a individual gage of your intensity. You will notice that doing a specific workout that your calories burned may be different from day to day. It depends on your intensity of the workout. I would definitely use my HRM over the calories listed in MFP because, as others have said, it depends on not only the activity, but the age, weight and intensity level of the individual.
  • christenwypy
    christenwypy Posts: 335 Member
    My exercise bike tracks calories burned and more often than not I burn more on there than MFP says I will.
  • mrandolph69
    mrandolph69 Posts: 197 Member
    I have a Polar FT7. The numbers it gives me for riding my exercise bike are usually 2 to 2.5 times what MFP gives me so I always go with the FT7's numbers.
  • Erica0718
    Erica0718 Posts: 469 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..)

    Can I piggy-back on the original post and the above and ask how different the HRMs are from the machines?

    The machines at the gym are right on with my heart rate according to my HRM, but are usually always over on cals burned compared to the HRM. Someone else mentioned that the machines could pick up the signal from the chest strap, I never thought about that and didn't realize it was possible but my HRM is a polar and the machine has a polar logo so I guess that could be why my heart rate is accurate....
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    A HRM is truly a individual gage of your intensity. You will notice that doing a specific workout that your calories burned may be different from day to day. It depends on your intensity of the workout. I would definitely use my HRM over the calories listed in MFP because, as others have said, it depends on not only the activity, but the age, weight and intensity level of the individual.

    of course the accuracy of your personal heart rate is going to be a better indicator than a general estimation of calories burned but I'm wondering on average how "off" the two numbers are.
  • 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.

    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.

    I'm 4'11 and about 100 pounds...I was maybe 92 then so I think it was most definitely inaccurate for me.
  • Kikilicious84
    Kikilicious84 Posts: 312
    Mine are under estimated on MFP compared to my HRM. I just log what my HRM says...I paid for it... Might as well use it.
  • catodd
    catodd Posts: 37 Member
    Actually i checked mfp against the hrm and it was my mistake.Had i been selecting the correct average pace for the time mfp was only 50 cals or so out............DOH!
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 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.

    Actually, we know that Polar is pretty much the best HRM brand around... almost everyone I meet, has one or recommends them. Sportline on the other hand is a pretty crappy brand, so I'd watch eating back those exercise calories.

    To OP:
    I have a Polar FT7 and I find that for most activities it's around what MFP says. For machines though, there is a huge discrepancy between the machine and my HRM... Sometimes between 200 and 300 calories.

    As long as it's calibrated correctly, it will do a pretty good job at estimating.. strength training can get spotty, but thats when you should use it as a guide and not as a end all means.
  • rosied915
    rosied915 Posts: 799 Member
    To the OP~

    I also have the Polar FT7 and MFP is WAY over what it says. I had to "suck it up" when I got my HRM but I feel I'm getting a much more accurate reading.

    Note: I compared my HRM's reading for walking on a treadmill to the treadmill's calorie burn and it was only 5 calories different!!
    (you can enter your weight on the treadmill but not your age or gender)

    Also~ I chose a Polar HRM because it got such great reviews, served MY purpose and was affordable.
  • Cdcaldwe
    Cdcaldwe Posts: 189 Member
    I have messed up my knees a bit and have been on an elliptical for the past couple months. One thing i have noticed with my HRM is that MFP is close for me when i push out an average workout. If i really up the intensity of the elliptical i burn a lot more calories than what mfp says. If i slack off and am tired i am usually under. HRM has really been beneficial for me.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories