Heart rate monitor vs. MFP calculator

otcody
otcody Posts: 7 Member
edited October 4 in Fitness and Exercise
I was curious to see what everyone thought about the accuracy of the MFP calculator for exercise. I wore my heart rate monitor to exercise this morning and it said I burned 454 calories, but when I added the same exercise into the calculator on MFP it said I burned 518. Which do you go by? I'm not always sure my HRM is correct, it sometimes has a mind of its own.

Replies

  • Swissmiss
    Swissmiss Posts: 8,754 Member
    Do you have your HRM set up for your age, weight, etc? If so, then it is probably more accurate than MFP. MFP is only guessing. If you burned even 454 calories in one exercise session, then I would say you are doing great !!!!
  • wrldtrvlr83
    wrldtrvlr83 Posts: 2 Member
    Hmmm that's interesting because I usually have the oppositve effect (MFP calories are lower than my HRM). I would stick with the HRM reading. Is your personal information correct/updated on you HRM?
  • maemiller
    maemiller Posts: 439 Member
    My HRM because its based off of my stats and my heart rate. the MFP calculator is only an est
  • katkins3
    katkins3 Posts: 1,359 Member
    I go with my HRM. It hurt at first to switch to using the monitor numbers because they are sometimes as low as half of what MFP gives me.
    Since I eat back my exercise calories, I surely don't want to overestimate what those exercise calories are!
  • Meggles63
    Meggles63 Posts: 916 Member
    Hmmm that's interesting because I usually have the oppositve effect (MFP calories are lower than my HRM). I would stick with the HRM reading. Is your personal information correct/updated on you HRM?

    You, too? I thought I was the ONLY person on here who gets a much higher reading from the HRM, lol!
  • ooOOooGravy
    ooOOooGravy Posts: 476 Member
    I always go with my HRM, its much more accurate, i think MFP works based on a average heart rate of what ever exercising your doing. So if the average person of your weight usually has a HR of 150 of what exercise you were doing, but actually you only averaged 135 instead, it makes a huge difference, next time you work out, up the average HR by working harder, see if itgets closer to MFP or even over it.

    My hard runs of 5K i think MFP uses are HR of about 150, but i average over 170 sometime 180 depending if its a hilly run. and i burn much more than MFP states.

    Hope that helps
  • JPayne53
    JPayne53 Posts: 235 Member
    When in doubt I always take an average... nothing is ever exact. :bigsmile:
  • JStarnes
    JStarnes Posts: 5,576 Member
    I go by my HRM - it is tailored to my age/weight/height/activity level.....MFP is an avg.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories