iPhone vs HRM vs MFP

jogdog
jogdog Posts: 89 Member
edited October 5 in Food and Nutrition
Today I went for a 4 mile jog. My pace was right about 5 mph. I used an iPhone app for my training for the first time and it has the ability to help calculate calories burned. So I had my iPhone going and on top of that I wore my HRM that goes to my watch and afterwards I got on to MFP to log my running.

The question is that my iPhone said I burned 558 calories, my HRM says I burned 811 calories, and MFP says that I burned 564 calories... which one should I put as calories burned? I know people say to use the HRM, that it's more accurate, but 811 calories seems a bit excessive and the other two were right around each other. I ended up putting the lesser of the three, but was curious as to what other people would suggest.

Thanks!

Replies

  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,605 Member
    None of them will be spot on, but it's likely your HRM will give you the best measure.
  • Huffdogg
    Huffdogg Posts: 1,934 Member
    HRM > MFP > iPhone
  • Sooznine
    Sooznine Posts: 29 Member
    I usually average whatever i get from my various devices and MFP.... :)
  • Ange_
    Ange_ Posts: 324 Member
    i agree with meerkat70. Go for your HRM reading everytime. It is the only device that has both special information particular to your body AND measuring how your body is responding to exercise in real-time.
    Don't bother with any other calculations if you have a HRM - you can't get any better than that.
  • horror_hamster
    horror_hamster Posts: 278
    i'd say to follow the HRM. it monitors your heart (dur) so it knows the details of your workout. The other two are more generic calculations that dont really monitor exactly what your heart and breathing is like (which is a more accurate picture of the effort you're exerting)
  • melaniecheeks
    melaniecheeks Posts: 6,349 Member
    All of those seem high to me - how long were you jogging, and what is your current weight?
  • therealangd
    therealangd Posts: 1,861 Member
    Is your HRM one that uses a chest strap?

    After everything I've read about calorie burns and running, 811 for 4 miles is excessive. I would be more inclined to go with the lower of the other two.

    The average calorie burn per mile is about 100. Depending on what kind of incline you were doing, it could go higher.

    Also, I personally have not found MFP to be that hugely inaccurate.
  • kerrylou45
    kerrylou45 Posts: 60 Member
    I go with the HRM too. I find the iphone apps and MFP are about the same but the HRM is taken from what your actually doing and although its not going to be spot on it's better than the others because everyone copes differently with the same exercise going the same pace.
  • meerkat70
    meerkat70 Posts: 4,605 Member
    Is your HRM one that uses a chest strap?

    After everything I've read about calorie burns and running, 811 for 4 miles is excessive. I would be more inclined to go with the lower of the other two.

    At over 200lb? Probably not that excessive.... The 'average burn is 100 cal per mile' rough guide is based on an average weight of about 60kg.... Running at a significantly higher weight than that produces significantly more strain, and burns significantly more calories.
  • RAFValentina
    RAFValentina Posts: 1,231 Member
    I'd say the HRM was high for that! I mean 4miles is roughly about 400 calories (give or take some for how heavy you weigh) You weren't especially fast so I don't think it'd be much higher than iPhone or MFP... I did a 12.8km (8 mile) run this morning and in 1 hr 9 mins I burned 940 calories... I weight 69-70Kg. It takes in to account your height too and your weight and your speed and terrain... I think 800+ is excessively high for a 4 mile run I'm afraid. 500 = acceptable. x
  • 1myfit
    1myfit Posts: 69
    from the postings I see HRM seems to give a lot more cals and if that was the case wouldn't everyone be skinny??? I'm having trouble believing it.
  • IronSmasher
    IronSmasher Posts: 3,908 Member
    For those asking, I make it 48 minutes, and her weight is on her ticker.

    Don't feel bad, I'm a genius.
  • nay038
    nay038 Posts: 5 Member
    Hrm because it should be closet to your actual performance the others are more generic
  • therealangd
    therealangd Posts: 1,861 Member
    Is your HRM one that uses a chest strap?

    After everything I've read about calorie burns and running, 811 for 4 miles is excessive. I would be more inclined to go with the lower of the other two.

    At over 200lb? Probably not that excessive.... The 'average burn is 100 cal per mile' rough guide is based on an average weight of about 60kg.... Running at a significantly higher weight than that produces significantly more strain, and burns significantly more calories.

    To burn over 200 calories per mile, one would have to be 3-400 lbs. Running uphill.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Today I went for a 4 mile jog. My pace was right about 5 mph.

    The question is that my iPhone said I burned 558 calories, my HRM says I burned 811 calories, and MFP says that I burned 564 calories...

    What personal info does your HRM have you enter exactly? And was that info correct?
    If it doesn't have weight, or max HR, or age, then it is going to be based on big avg tables of testers.

    They can be closer to accurate, or as bad as the iPhone app or MFP, depending on what it knows.

    Try this site since you know everything but your VO2 max probably. This uses a Polar HRM formula.
    http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

    And to get in the range of 558 to 811 calories, I show your heart rate had to avg 175 to 225 for that 48 min - very doubtful.

    Curious what make/model is your HRM is, and what info you do enter?

    Thanks.
  • jogdog
    jogdog Posts: 89 Member
    To answer a few questions:

    I am about 200 lbs (dang Thanksgiving, lol) and during my run, my HR average was 160 bpm (after a few minutes rest my HR was right at about 110 bpm), and where I was running it was a bit hilly. And if you couldn't figure out the amount of time I ran from my original post, I did 4 miles at 5 mph which is a pace of 12:00 min/mile which equals to 48 minutes of jogging.

    The HRM is a sportline duo for women. I do use a chest strap with it and it has my information in it: sex, weight, age, and height. It shows percentage of max HR.

    In terms of effort, this was a medium-hard run for me and a bit slower than my 5K race pace.

    Also, my HRM has worked perfectly for my other runs since I got it a few weeks ago and has given me accurate calorie burns as far as I can tell (usually a lot lower than MFP). For example, for a 25 min jog it gave me a calorie burn reading of a little over 200.

    Maybe I will try the same course and pace later in the week.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Pretty good amount of time for that level of HR! Wow.

    The Polar HRM formula gave you 595 calories, so closer to the other two.

    Just scanning comments concerning that HRM, seems to be a lot of comments regarding the same inflated values for calorie burn. Especially compared to when some wore another HRM to compare.

    So while it asks for all the right info, sex, weight, age, height is bonus, it appears to either not use it, or they can't use some of the algorithms found during some of the studies. Which of course, many of those are sponsored by HRM companies, and results are used in a patent.
  • jogdog
    jogdog Posts: 89 Member
    Thanks mbales369 for all the extra info. I really appreciate it!
  • mkingraham
    mkingraham Posts: 445 Member
    To answer a few questions:

    I am about 200 lbs (dang Thanksgiving, lol) and during my run, my HR average was 160 bpm (after a few minutes rest my HR was right at about 110 bpm), and where I was running it was a bit hilly. And if you couldn't figure out the amount of time I ran from my original post, I did 4 miles at 5 mph which is a pace of 12:00 min/mile which equals to 48 minutes of jogging.

    The HRM is a sportline duo for women. I do use a chest strap with it and it has my information in it: sex, weight, age, and height. It shows percentage of max HR.

    In terms of effort, this was a medium-hard run for me and a bit slower than my 5K race pace.

    Also, my HRM has worked perfectly for my other runs since I got it a few weeks ago and has given me accurate calorie burns as far as I can tell (usually a lot lower than MFP). For example, for a 25 min jog it gave me a calorie burn reading of a little over 200.

    Maybe I will try the same course and pace later in the week.

    This time/pace and effort is very similar to what I do, including the average HR and I burn about 200 cals a mile. If this level is really high for what you normally see from your heart rate then I would suggest changing the battery and going from there. But your HRM is always going to be more accurate than anything else. Good luck!
  • inspiration345
    inspiration345 Posts: 218 Member
    After using the bodybugg I know HRMs sometimes overestimate.Also one has to subtract atleast 60 cals per hour of exercise from the HRM reading.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories