Calories: HRM vs Cardio Machine vs MFP's Suggestion

ReluctantKiller
ReluctantKiller Posts: 21
edited November 9 in Fitness and Exercise
Ok, I got a question that's prolly been asked a hundred times before, but here goes anyway.... I've read several threads on here before on using the calories burned readout from various cardio machines (treadmill, bikes, ellipticals, etc) assuming you put in your weight/age instead of the MFP calories where you put in the time trained because usually the MFP comes up with a higher number than the machine. And if you have a HRM, go with that because it would be even more accurate. With this in mind, yesterday I picked up a Sportline CARDIO 630 (please don't berate me saying I should have gotten a Polar, the store I went to only had the one choice). However, this morning I did 60 minutes on an Elliptical and here's where I get confused: MFP suggests 914 calories burned for 60 mins, the machine came up with 772 calories - so far, so good, since common wisdom suggests MFP's numbers are high - my HRM on the other hand, came up with a whopping 1014 calories burned - more even than MFP's guestimate! So..... is that really the number I should go with in my diary?

I appreciate any input on this ya'll could give.


This is the HRM I got if anyone isn't familiar with it:
http://www.sportline.com/products/heart-rate-monitors/cardio-630-heartrate-mens.html

Replies

  • ReluctantKiller
    ReluctantKiller Posts: 21
    Don't like doing this, but I would really like some input, so.... bump
  • amirah85
    amirah85 Posts: 3
    honeslty i am no pro at this but i am going to just give my opinion. i would go with what the HRM is saying. the reason i say this is because. the HRM is on your body and it normally has sensors that are picking up your heart rate so i would think this would be more accurate due to that alone. mfp and the machine use formulas to calculate how many calories you burn so they could be off and in the end it would mess you up because you may not eat enough and slow you progress. hope that is helpful







    4161761.png
    Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Weight Loss Tools
  • cdnclovr
    cdnclovr Posts: 65 Member
    This looks like a fine watch! Just make sure you enter your heart rate info correctly. The HRM is pretty much gospel because it's doing continuous monitoring of your heart beat. The problem I've found with treadmills for instance, is that it requires a constant touch and it's pretty picky about how you grip it to get the correct info. Computer programs are only best guesses but the program doesn't take into account your heart zones. The harder you workout, the more beats, the more calories. So in my opinion, go with the HRM.
  • ReluctantKiller
    ReluctantKiller Posts: 21
    Alright, thanks for the input... kinda what I was thinking to begin with, but nice to have some comfirmation, ya know?
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    I'd go with the HRM too.

    I know there are some very knowledgeable people on the forum who might be able to provide some info on why HRMs are not perfect at estimating. For example, I know that my heart rate is always near my supposed maximum heart rate when I'm working out hard but not THAT hard.. so I think my HRM over-estimates my calories burned. But it does estimate slightly less than MFP. I wish I understood it better.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories