MFP or machine or HRM???

emmab0902
emmab0902 Posts: 2,338 Member
edited October 3 in Health and Weight Loss
What do most people use to estimate calories burned when logging exercise? Do you rely on MFP estimates or go by a machine? For those of you with HRMs, which do you find more accurate - and how do the three different estimates compare?

I am thinking of investing in a HRM but not sure how accurate it would be re calories burned as I am on beta blockers.

Replies

  • PBJunkie
    PBJunkie Posts: 652
    Take the average of the 2 that are the closest to each other.
  • snookumss
    snookumss Posts: 1,451 Member
    My Heart Rate Monitor tells me my calories burned are pretty different than MFP, however the Elliptical machine I tried today was accurate as to my heart rate today :D The calories were within 2, so I figure thats close enough!
  • shelleycolton
    shelleycolton Posts: 400 Member
    Last night I compared the gym machine and my HRM monitor and was completely shocked, HRM stated 440Kcals burned and the Gym machine said 598kcals (Cardio) and 162kcals (Strength), massive difference, I have been using the machine readings for over a year, i wonder how many calories that works out! Won't be doing it again. On the positive note I found the HR readings on the machine pretty accurate compared with HRM. Oh now i don't using the MFP at all they way over estimate, even for my swimming its the HRM all the way! Hope this helps.
  • javienjaydenmommy
    javienjaydenmommy Posts: 22
    I was just looking into the hrm. when you get the answer let me know. I go by the cal burned on the machine because the cal mfp give you be really high.
  • Kaiweijeng
    Kaiweijeng Posts: 1
    I just use my HRM as a baseline for everything. Remember, even the HRM is not a true reflection of the calories burned. True caloric expenditure will depends on your lean body mass, and it's different for everyone.

    When I do my cardio, I wear a Garmin chest HRM and a receiver watch. HRM also transmit data onto my iPhone's app (Digifit) Even though my HR displays the same on the watch and Digifit app, I will get different results when comparing calories burned. Usually Digifit will have higher calories burned count. It's just different logarithms they use to calculate amount of calories.
  • talysshade
    talysshade Posts: 273 Member
    Being on beta blockers may slightly change the outcome of a HRM. I would still consider investing in one. The question is, does the machine you're on know your weight ? If you put in your weight to the machine it'll be a lot more accurate than when it doesn't.

    If it does know your weight i'd take the average of the machine and the HRM. If it doesn't know your weight, i'd go for the HRM even with beta blockers. Although personally i've found in some cases the MFP database is not that far off of what my HRM says. Although as an example, when i'm cycling medium to fast, my HRM readings compare to MFP's "light cycling" activity.

    Really gotta find out what's best for you.
  • Crawflowr
    Crawflowr Posts: 106 Member
    I found my HRM tends to give slightly higher values than the MFP basic, but figure I should take off 75 cals per hour from the HRM measure as that is what I would have used if I'd sat on my bottom instead. Usually for me the MFP and the HRM agree well enough that if I don't use the HRM I'm happy to take the MFP figure. The machines in the gym seem to under estimate the cals compared to what the HRM is saying and they don't account for the fact that the gaps between one piece of equipment my heart rate is still high so I'm still using cals at all points of the session. I leave the monitor running until my heart drops back to 100 BPM and count the whole time.

    One problem I do have is my heart rate is generally high, just walking down the stairs to the gym and I'm already around 130 bpm and in the high intensity zone, so working in the fat burning zone isn't really an option. It makes me think that the HRM may thus not be that accurate as I think my heart may just be unfit and beats much faster than it should need to, so even when my body isn't using that much energy my heart is beating fast enough that it looks like my body is using loads.

    I think with my heart rate this high I don't see how I ever became over weight in the first place. If I put my HRM on and sit on the sofa for an hour, my heart rate beats around 80bpm and the HRM records around 200 calories used.

    Anyway netting 1200 calories using MFP I am losing weight at a nice rate of 1.25lb per week so it seems to be working.
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    I personally use my HRM as it's calculated to me and me only.. and with a chest strap, it's going to be pretty spot on.

    That being said, your next best be would be MFP.. even though they are going off generalizations, it still has all of your data to use.

    Machines are the worst because you can't enter any info about yourself.. thus giving you a really over/under inflated calorie burn.
  • emmab0902
    emmab0902 Posts: 2,338 Member
    The question is, does the machine you're on know your weight ? If you put in your weight to the machine it'll be a lot more accurate than when it doesn't.

    .

    Yep the elliptical and treadmill I can enter my weight but not the exercise bike.
  • Meggles63
    Meggles63 Posts: 916 Member
    I found my HRM tends to give slightly higher values than the MFP basic, but figure I should take off 75 cals per hour from the HRM measure as that is what I would have used if I'd sat on my bottom instead. Usually for me the MFP and the HRM agree well enough that if I don't use the HRM I'm happy to take the MFP figure. The machines in the gym seem to under estimate the cals compared to what the HRM is saying and they don't account for the fact that the gaps between one piece of equipment my heart rate is still high so I'm still using cals at all points of the session. I leave the monitor running until my heart drops back to 100 BPM and count the whole time.

    One problem I do have is my heart rate is generally high, just walking down the stairs to the gym and I'm already around 130 bpm and in the high intensity zone, so working in the fat burning zone isn't really an option. It makes me think that the HRM may thus not be that accurate as I think my heart may just be unfit and beats much faster than it should need to, so even when my body isn't using that much energy my heart is beating fast enough that it looks like my body is using loads.

    I think with my heart rate this high I don't see how I ever became over weight in the first place. If I put my HRM on and sit on the sofa for an hour, my heart rate beats around 80bpm and the HRM records around 200 calories used.

    Anyway netting 1200 calories using MFP I am losing weight at a nice rate of 1.25lb per week so it seems to be working.

    I'm the same way! My HR is just naturally high...I'm 48 and in fairly good shape (grad of P90X and month 1 Insanity), so I think it's just naturally that way. My HRM (with chest strap) reads WAY higher than MFP, with my average in the 150's, which is high cardio zone, and I'm dropping the weight easily, using 1500 (+ eating back), so I think it's pretty accurate.....
  • keiraev
    keiraev Posts: 695 Member
    I haven't got a HRM as I have managed to lose weight without one so far but I am intrigued.

    I therefore only have MFP to go on, but if I am at the gym and the machine asks me for my weight I use that reading as I assume it will be more accurate than MFP as it takes into account changes in speed, intensity etc The only machines where I can do this are the treadmill and the elliptical- the bikes and rowing machines you can't put your weight in so I go of MFP.
  • lacroyx
    lacroyx Posts: 5,754 Member
    HRM. I started using one when I was 400+ lbs. my main excercise back then was walking. 1hr. MFP would calculate me @ 700 calories burned. my Polar HRM would put me 1100-1400 calories burned. huge difference.
  • rosied915
    rosied915 Posts: 799 Member
    I just got my Polar FT7 and got a huge blow to my tender little ego~ MFP was WAY high on ALL of my exercises~ like almost double!!
    (or could it be that I may have OVER estimated my intensity? nah, that would NEVER happen....lol)

    Meanwhile, when I wore my HRM on the treadmill at the gym, the calories burned were pracftically identical~ maybe 5 cals different.

    Bottom line~ if I am going to choose to "eat" those calories burned, I want it to be accurate!!
  • Huskeryogi
    Huskeryogi Posts: 578 Member
    I don't trust what the machines say at all. Usually what my HRM says after I subtract out the 95 calories/hour I would have burned anyway is just a little higher than what MFP says. So if I don something without my HRM on I don't have any issues logging what MFP says.
  • emmab0902
    emmab0902 Posts: 2,338 Member
    I don't trust what the machines say at all. Usually what my HRM says after I subtract out the 95 calories/hour I would have burned anyway is just a little higher than what MFP says. So if I don something without my HRM on I don't have any issues logging what MFP says.

    so if your HRM says you burned 220cal in an hour doing exercise, you would reduce that to 125?? Are people supposed to subtract resting heart rate from calories burned??
This discussion has been closed.

Categories