calories burned: MFP estimates vs. HRM estimates (Polar FT4)

Options
NovemberJune
NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
hi! :happy:

I know I was always glad to hear comparisons between what MFP gave people for their calories burned during a workout compared to what a HRM gave. Well I've been going by MFP estimates for about 9 months and just got my Polar FT4 HRM saturday.

From my 2 workouts with my HRM so far, both times the HRM calories burned were 10% lower than what MFP would have given me. That was the case both for stationary bike (logged on MFP as "moderate effort") and for logging Jillian Michaels as "circuit training"

I know it's different for everyone, I just thought people might be curious :)
«1

Replies

  • rmsnipes
    rmsnipes Posts: 20 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the info....I just order a Polar FT7 today and wondered what kind of difference the calorie burn is/will be. I was afraid that MFP was higher. I can't wait to get mine, so I have a more accurate info. Also, I always have to just use something listed in MFP that is closest to the workout I'm actually doing.
  • Diary_Queen
    Diary_Queen Posts: 1,314 Member
    Options
    I've noticed difference like that as well. For me, it depends on how much effort I put into my workouts though. I hate just using a stock number from here without verifying or sometimes outright calculating with my HRM. I can say I've done p90x plyometrics, but if I half-*kitten* it, I'm really not burning the calories estimated on MFP. On the other side of that, if I push myself extra hard, I might burn 10 or 20 more cals... I like it when I do that, but it takes my HRM to tell me the diff.
  • Cynthian24
    Cynthian24 Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    I think part of the problem is that MFP is doing a very generic calculation for the calories burned. If you are doing a stationary bike or Elliptical that calculates the calories burned, they base it on the actual effort you are putting into the exercise. You could technically get on bike and pedal really slowly and put no effort into it but MFP wouldn't know that. I always use the calories calculated on the machine as opposed to what MFP gives me.
  • CMorning99
    CMorning99 Posts: 916 Member
    Options
    My HRM is usually lower than any calorie counter unless I do HIIT, then it is higher. I figure it takes into acount more factors than just time and weight...
  • shadea4455
    shadea4455 Posts: 173 Member
    Options
    Thanks for sharing! I always wonder how many calories over it is giving me, so I usually manually subtract some, I figure it's better to be under than over! I'm hoping for the FT4 for Christmas so I can be more accurate!
  • chubby_checkers
    chubby_checkers Posts: 2,354 Member
    Options
    I think part of the problem is that MFP is doing a very generic calculation for the calories burned. If you are doing a stationary bike or Elliptical that calculates the calories burned, they base it on the actual effort you are putting into the exercise. You could technically get on bike and pedal really slowly and put no effort into it but MFP wouldn't know that. I always use the calories calculated on the machine as opposed to what MFP gives me.

    I do this too as I haven't gotten my HRM yet. I also knock off 5-10 lbs when I enter my weight into the machine because I know they aren't super accurate either.
  • karenhs2
    karenhs2 Posts: 197
    Options
    Sorry to piggyback on this post but i don't see a way to search topics (other than manually) and I hope you won't mind. I can easily see where a good HRM would be better in many cases than using the generic calorie calculations on MFP. I want to put one on my Christmas list. Is the Polar FT4 one that has been recommended by MFP ladies? Are there other good ones you would suggest? And if you can point me to a thread, that would be great, too!
  • sammybey
    sammybey Posts: 72 Member
    Options
    I actually burn MORE calories based on my FT4 w/JIllian BFBM than logging it as "circuit training." I believe MFP had it at around 280 calories for me-- I usually burn around 460-500 (with some outlier days of 420 - 550). Same with a yoga class I took- 60 min class burned 178 calories when MFP would've said 144.

    My FT4 is the best purchase I've done towards my lifestyle change... that, and a food scale.
  • gbl4
    gbl4 Posts: 16
    Options
    Hi! I've been using my Polar FT7 for about a week and absoloutely love it! It is worth the $20 difference compared to the Polar FT4. I've tried it with circuit training (Jillian shred/ripped & firm express) as well as cardio, running, elliptical etc and I would say its fairly accurrate. With the circuit training it has given me sometimes more than what MFP says and for cardio about the same. If circuit training is less, its never more than 10 calories off each way. I guess what I am saying is it does depend on how hard you push, but it does a fairly accurrate job, although most HRM's and gym equipment use an average of your workout, so to compensate for this I always under estimate and put that number in my log (a lower number of 10 - 20 calories).
  • Maidei
    Maidei Posts: 114 Member
    Options
    HRM are awesome! I got a Polar FT60 and found out the elliptical at my gym over estimated calories by 27%! While MFP over estimated by almost 27% as well if you use the generic "Elliptical trainer" option. But the treadmill numbers were pretty accurate on MFP with only a 10-15% overestimate. The actual treadmill, depending on how intensely you work out can range from being 10% -27% off (The less intense your workout the more inaccurate the calorie estimate became).
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the info....I just order a Polar FT7 today and wondered what kind of difference the calorie burn is/will be. I was afraid that MFP was higher. I can't wait to get mine, so I have a more accurate info. Also, I always have to just use something listed in MFP that is closest to the workout I'm actually doing.

    I was really afraid it was going to end up being a HUGE difference. 10% isn't teensy but I was afraid it'd be like 25% less or something. :) good luck with yours!!!
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    Options
    I've noticed difference like that as well. For me, it depends on how much effort I put into my workouts though. I hate just using a stock number from here without verifying or sometimes outright calculating with my HRM. I can say I've done p90x plyometrics, but if I half-*kitten* it, I'm really not burning the calories estimated on MFP. On the other side of that, if I push myself extra hard, I might burn 10 or 20 more cals... I like it when I do that, but it takes my HRM to tell me the diff.

    That's the biggest reason I got the HRM, so it will motivate me to work for a higher burn. And lots of times I'm like, "I really didn't work that hard, better enter "light effort" instead of moderate"" lol
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    Options
    Sorry to piggyback on this post but i don't see a way to search topics (other than manually) and I hope you won't mind. I can easily see where a good HRM would be better in many cases than using the generic calorie calculations on MFP. I want to put one on my Christmas list. Is the Polar FT4 one that has been recommended by MFP ladies? Are there other good ones you would suggest? And if you can point me to a thread, that would be great, too!

    I saw the FT4 recommended quite a bit. Also the FT7 which is a bit more. I didn't want the extra features of the FT7 so I went with FT4. I'm happy so far but not the greatest judge since I've only had it since Saturday ;)
    I bought it on pedometersusa.com
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    Options
    I actually burn MORE calories based on my FT4 w/JIllian BFBM than logging it as "circuit training." I believe MFP had it at around 280 calories for me-- I usually burn around 460-500 (with some outlier days of 420 - 550). Same with a yoga class I took- 60 min class burned 178 calories when MFP would've said 144.

    My FT4 is the best purchase I've done towards my lifestyle change... that, and a food scale.

    Thanks! that makes me want to try BFBM! lol. I've done NMTZ, 30DS, and ripped in 30
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    Options
    Hi! I've been using my Polar FT7 for about a week and absoloutely love it! It is worth the $20 difference compared to the Polar FT4. I've tried it with circuit training (Jillian shred/ripped & firm express) as well as cardio, running, elliptical etc and I would say its fairly accurrate. With the circuit training it has given me sometimes more than what MFP says and for cardio about the same. If circuit training is less, its never more than 10 calories off each way. I guess what I am saying is it does depend on how hard you push, but it does a fairly accurrate job, although most HRM's and gym equipment use an average of your workout, so to compensate for this I always under estimate and put that number in my log (a lower number of 10 - 20 calories).
    Thanks!
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    Options
    HRM are awesome! I got a Polar FT60 and found out the elliptical at my gym over estimated calories by 27%! While MFP over estimated by almost 27% as well if you use the generic "Elliptical trainer" option. But the treadmill numbers were pretty accurate on MFP with only a 10-15% overestimate. The actual treadmill, depending on how intensely you work out can range from being 10% -27% off (The less intense your workout the more inaccurate the calorie estimate became).

    Thanks ! My exercise bike does not ask for weight and doesn't use pulse and it WAY UNDERESTIMATES my burns. I mean it would say i've burned like 85 calories, MFP will say 300, and my HRM will say 270, something like that!
  • karenhs2
    karenhs2 Posts: 197
    Options
    This has been a VERY helpful thread - thank you!!!
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    Options
    This has been a VERY helpful thread - thank you!!!

    cool! I meant to say also that there is a search. But it's not the greatest. It's up above, you click search and a box comes down. :)
  • karenhs2
    karenhs2 Posts: 197
    Options
    This has been a VERY helpful thread - thank you!!!

    cool! I meant to say also that there is a search. But it's not the greatest. It's up above, you click search and a box comes down. :)

    OH - now I see it - thank you!
    I don't mine at least trying a search first even if it isn't the greatest.
  • aamon17
    aamon17 Posts: 54 Member
    Options
    Great post!

    For the record, Amazon has the FT4 for $69.56 in Women's Brown.... BUT, you can ACTUALLY get the Black/Silver Mens FT7 for LESS @ $68.74 OR the Black/Gold Womens FT7 for $76.36!!! There is NO difference between the Men's & Women's watches. I have the Black/Silver. My Wife has the Black/Gold. Go for the FT7, more features, less money SURPRISINGLY!

    FT7: http://www.amazon.com/Polar-Heart-Monitor-Watch-Silver/dp/B001U0OFDC/ref=sr_1_2?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1321981418&sr=1-2

    FT4: http://www.amazon.com/Polar-Womens-Heart-Monitor-Bronze/dp/B001U0OFD2/ref=sr_1_3?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1321980961&sr=1-3

Categories