Heart Rate Monitor vs MFP exercises

Kerri7897
Kerri7897 Posts: 15
edited November 12 in Fitness and Exercise
I just got my heart rate monitor in the mail today Polar FT4 and tried it out. The thing I noticed is that the calories burned is much lower for my weight, age, height than what I was getting in the MFP database....just wondering if anyone else has seen the same thing...

Thanks!

Replies

  • mamamc03
    mamamc03 Posts: 1,067 Member
    Yup. remember that MFP gives you an estimate. It is in no way meant to be an exact caloric match. What I do when I dont wear my HRM is lowball my time by a third and it comes pretty close. Just add in your exercise notes your actual minutes if you need to. ;)

    Edit: that's the beauty of an HRM...it measures YOU! MFP is awesome, but every person is different. They give the best information they can get based on what data is out there.
  • Willbenchforcupcakes
    Willbenchforcupcakes Posts: 4,955 Member
    For a lot of things, my ft4 is a fair bit lower, however, when I walk, it is a lot more (but then again, I am also pushing a 90lb double stroller when I walk). Your hrm is basing it off of your heart rate at any given moment, not off what someone else was doing, which is what most of the exercises in the data base are.
  • GretchenReine
    GretchenReine Posts: 1,374 Member
    Definitely! Mine was significantly lower when I first got it. I've noticed though, that as I increase my intensity (ie pumping arms, using weights when walking) that my HRM is now normally higher than MFP. At first I realized it was a good thing I didn't eat back my exercise calories or I would've been way over-eating!
  • Kerri7897
    Kerri7897 Posts: 15
    Good, I just wanted to make sure everything was ok, I had actually thought some of my exercises were pretty high in burning calories and that is why I haven't been trying to eat back my exercise calories....
  • ThisisMiss
    ThisisMiss Posts: 187 Member
    Oh yeah, it was a real eye opener once I realized that MFP was sometimes overestimating by over double what my HRM says. I was also not eating back my calories because I thought it was a bit high (otherwise I would have been losing so much weight before without MFP!!) The only time MFP is near what my HRM says is if, like the previous poster, I up the intensity a bit more.
  • Leanne169
    Leanne169 Posts: 27 Member
    I have the Polar FT4 and thats what I love about it. I know it's precise!
  • izzydino
    izzydino Posts: 254 Member
    I love my hrm. It is essential for my weight loss (I eat all my exercise cslories.) when I first got it I thought I was doing something wrong since it was so much lower then the machines st the y and the mfp calculator.
  • tjsusong
    tjsusong Posts: 195 Member
    That is correct! AND... you can do the same workout 2 days in a row and not burn the same calories and the HRM will tell you that. You will burn a different number of calories when you work out at different times during the day. As women, we burn differently at different times of the month even with the same workout. A HRM tells you that. Its a much more precise measure of what you have burned. I love my Polar:)
  • slimmergalpal
    slimmergalpal Posts: 235 Member
    Yep, found the same thing out myself. After a friend on here was charting his runs with his , I went out and bought me one. Big difference. However, MFP is just a "guide" and cannot adjust to all body types. Was kinda' sad to think I was doing so much better than I actually was. sigh.
    Good Luck !
  • Wardon
    Wardon Posts: 7
    Today was my first workout on MFP. It estimated about 40% more cals burned than my Polar FT4.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I have the Polar FT4 and thats what I love about it. I know it's precise!

    Hate to be the bearer of potentially bad news.

    You know it's precise because of being measured in the lab while wearing it?

    Or because it is different than MFP therefore it must be precise?

    Sadly for women - you have a pretty good chance of it NOT being accurate with default values, and even then, still off.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study
  • MissFluffyBottoms
    MissFluffyBottoms Posts: 30
    I discovered that the calorie burn on MFP was much lower than what I was actually seeing on my HRM.
  • MrsSamB
    MrsSamB Posts: 143 Member
    Do you guys use the Timex HRM?
  • MiaAnjuli
    MiaAnjuli Posts: 12
    I've actually found the opposite. My heart rate monitor is showing that I am burning more than I thought I was.
  • schnugglebug
    schnugglebug Posts: 330 Member
    I am thinking mine WAY over estimates... and well it doesn't work properly all the time... I will be in aerobics class and it will say 150-160... then a few seconds later I look back and it says 60.. umm if my heart dropped that fast I would be dead I believe.

    I eat back about 1/2 my exercise calories when I can... if I am hungry... if I am not hungry I am not going to force myself to eat

    btw I have a timex HRM and I was told they aren't the best for accuracy I think mine WAY over reads... but 80% of the time it does work it seems... I dunno lol
  • MrsSamB
    MrsSamB Posts: 143 Member
    I am thinking mine WAY over estimates... and well it doesn't work properly all the time... I will be in aerobics class and it will say 150-160... then a few seconds later I look back and it says 60.. umm if my heart dropped that fast I would be dead I believe.

    I eat back about 1/2 my exercise calories when I can... if I am hungry... if I am not hungry I am not going to force myself to eat

    btw I have a timex HRM and I was told they aren't the best for accuracy I think mine WAY over reads... but 80% of the time it does work it seems... I dunno lol

    Maybe that's why everyone uses Polar? I'm not sure. I'm trying to figure all of this out. lol I sent you a reply pm btw.
  • SWEETS1234
    SWEETS1234 Posts: 243 Member
    I just got the polar ft4 and tried it out for the first time today. I was very happy to find that my calorie burn was almost the same as mfp. We'll see how tomorrow goes... :smile:
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I am thinking mine WAY over estimates... and well it doesn't work properly all the time... I will be in aerobics class and it will say 150-160... then a few seconds later I look back and it says 60.. umm if my heart dropped that fast I would be dead I believe.

    I eat back about 1/2 my exercise calories when I can... if I am hungry... if I am not hungry I am not going to force myself to eat

    btw I have a timex HRM and I was told they aren't the best for accuracy I think mine WAY over reads... but 80% of the time it does work it seems... I dunno lol

    Maybe that's why everyone uses Polar? I'm not sure. I'm trying to figure all of this out. lol I sent you a reply pm btw.

    My Timex had some great HRM features, zone alarms, time in zone, heart rate recovery, manually setting MHR and manual zones, digital so no interference with others.
    Calorie estimates was not such a feature. And no analog signal for machines to read either.

    My watch, other models may be different, only asked for age and weight. And I think age was merely for calculating MHR to set up the zones with default settings.
    With no gender, and no use of the MHR in calc's - it is way off.

    Great for primary purpose of HRM - training, terrible for that nice thing to have.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories