Calorie Burn and HRM

mmapags
mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
edited November 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
Today I did a 5 mile hike wearing my new HRM that I had only used in the gym to date. It was a fairly up and down course and most of the time my HRM showed between 100 and 115 with occaisional upward numbers from 120 to a high end of 133. 75% of my max is 120. At the end, I checked the review and it said 857 calories. I was surprised to say the least. When I plug vigorous walking at 4 mph on MFP it gave me 600 + calories. I've always been told that the most accurate measure of calories in the Heart Rate Monitor but that's a big discrepancy. Thoughts?

Replies

  • junyr
    junyr Posts: 416 Member
    Today I did a 5 mile hike wearing my new HRM that I had only used in the gym to date. It was a fairly up and down course and most of the time my HRM showed between 100 and 115 with occaisional upward numbers from 120 to a high end of 133. 75% of my max is 120. At the end, I checked the review and it said 857 calories. I was surprised to say the least. When I plug vigorous walking at 4 mph on MFP it gave me 600 + calories. I've always been told that the most accurate measure of calories in the Heart Rate Monitor but that's a big discrepancy. Thoughts?

    The website has no idea what your heart rate is so it's giving it's best guess as to what you burned. I'd go with the HRM since it was there and actually was touching your body to make the measurements.
  • shovav91
    shovav91 Posts: 2,335 Member
    I would split the difference. HRMs are bad at calculating calories burned when you aren't in your target heart rate zone, so I wouldn't count on that being accurate.
  • CatGrooms66
    CatGrooms66 Posts: 24
    Wow! That's insane! I don't burn that much when I run for 5 miles! I use my hrm all the time and hope it to be accurate, so go with it. What I do as far as my eating it back though, I take what MFP has in the database for the amount of time on the exercise and theirs is usually lower, so I go by that because even if your HRM is correct it doesn't hurt to be a little under calories on food.
  • Stuartm1
    Stuartm1 Posts: 101 Member
    Everyone is different sites like this and gym equipment can only use an average. I would be more inclined to believe the HRM (assuming you have it set properly). I know mine works it is consistant and when I have a cold etc calorie burn goes up as the heart is working harder
  • morkiemama
    morkiemama Posts: 894 Member
    Most HRMs don't take into account your base caloric burn for the hour. You need to back that out for exercises (like hiking) that can span a few hours.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Thanks for the replies so far. It is set right and is accurate when I do a gym workout as far as I can tell. The numbers that show on, say an eliptical, and the HRM are very close as well as are the typical MFP numbers and the HRM. Because it was low impact and not stressing at all, I will not eat back all the calories as I would with a high intensity workout.
  • slacker80
    slacker80 Posts: 235 Member
    perhaps maybe the age has a lot to do with it. mine isn't off too much from the MFP database.
  • lvpthemvp
    lvpthemvp Posts: 266 Member
    this is exactly why I am considering the bodybugg. I hear it is 90% accurate.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    this is exactly why I am considering the bodybugg. I hear it is 90% accurate.

    The body bugg may be 90% accurate when it comes to measuring free-living casual activity, but it has some big deficiencies when it comes to measuring exercise calories.

    For some people, being 90% accurate in their casual activity might be more helpful and more important than being super accurate about exercise calories. It's a choice the user has to make since usually you can't get both.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories