HRM and calorie counts

Options
Melanie_RS
Melanie_RS Posts: 417 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I don't know if it's just how I put my settings in my HRM but they do not coincide with the calories on MFP. Anyone else notice this? I know I'm working out 'vigorously' because I'm at 85% (sometimes 90%) of my heart rate throughout most of the workout - I really try to push it each time, but the calories are just considerably lower on my HRM. I doubt an hour of biking is only burning 350 calories. Especially when I'm drenched with sweat and completely exhausted afterwards. Or maybe????
«1

Replies

  • novatri
    novatri Posts: 262 Member
    Options
    A HRM will be far more accurate then MFP estimates. Your heart rate is a direct correlation with effort done. It can also tell you when your over training if your HR stays high after you work out. 90% max heart rate sounds like to much unless your doing intervals.

    Also MFP estimates don't take wind into account. Which is a huge deal on a bike.
  • leesee88
    leesee88 Posts: 54 Member
    Options
    Whenever I use a machine at the gym that gives a calorie count, it is usually DOUBLE what my HRM says.
    Same thing goes for what MFP estimates.
    I was pretty disappointed about this at first.... I was thinking about calling Polar and seeing if my HRM was malfunctioning or something. But that is just hopeful thinking probably~
  • mariposa224
    mariposa224 Posts: 1,269 Member
    Options
    I've heard frequently that MFP numbers run high. I would trust my HRM far more than the estimates provided by the site. Some exercises will show similarly, but others seem to be off a good deal.
  • irisheyez718
    irisheyez718 Posts: 677 Member
    Options
    Definitely go with your HRM. I was disappointed too when I first got one and saw how much less I was burning than what MFP told me, but really, its much better to know the truth!
  • Meganalva
    Meganalva Posts: 282 Member
    Options
    My HRM is almost always pretty darn close to MFP, I don't know why that is...a lot of people say theirs is lower. Hmm. It's actually higher on the calorie loss than my treadmill says I burn. :)
  • KaciWood19
    KaciWood19 Posts: 553 Member
    Options
    I am the opposite, my HRM tells me almost double what mfp and the machines do. I have been told this is different for everyone, if your HRM is one that you can input your stats (height and weight) then go by your HRM. For instance, my workout buddy and I did the exact same class at the gym, our HRs were very close to one another and we are similar height and age, but she weighs 125 and I weigh 170. I burned double the calories that she did.
  • SL22268
    SL22268 Posts: 59 Member
    Options
    Add me to the disappointed club! LOL - I just got a HRM too, and it is less than what the machine/MFP says - but I'm glad to know because I was eating back exercise calories that I hadn't burned - so now I rely solely on the HRM.
  • eganita
    eganita Posts: 501 Member
    Options
    Whenever I use a machine at the gym that gives a calorie count, it is usually DOUBLE what my HRM says.
    Same thing goes for what MFP estimates.
    I was pretty disappointed about this at first.... I was thinking about calling Polar and seeing if my HRM was malfunctioning or something. But that is just hopeful thinking probably~

    I've noticed the same :/ It seems that my heart rate usually doesn't get terribly high during a 30-40 minute workout on the elliptical at the gym. It seemed that: My HRM calories burned << MFP calories burned < elliptical machine reading for calories burned.

    I've found that when I wear my HRM for playing hockey, my calories burnt are much higher than I expected... up to 900 for two hockey games (games are 45 minutes, and I usually play 1/3-1/2 of the game.. but I guess my heart rate gets so high when I am playing, that I am still burning calories when I am resting during the game).
  • red_hatorade
    red_hatorade Posts: 166
    Options
    I have a Polar FT7 with a chest strap. I entered all my info, height/weight, into it and went on a 90+ minute walk yesterday to the store. The HRM said I burned around 630 calories. I am 5'6" and between 255 and 260 lbs (depending on the day, time, etc). This seems really high. Most of the time I was in fat burn mode. IDK, I just hope I am not getting my calories burned overstated, because I eat them back, netting around 1300 a day.
  • oldfieldm
    oldfieldm Posts: 14
    Options
    I always wear a HRM, the kind that straps around my chest. I don't trust the ones on the gym machines and the calories given from MFP are just estimates. I usually burn about 500 to 800 calories in an hour but I work very hard. If I burn 800 that means my heart rate is averaging around 170 which is a pretty intense average for an hour, but I can handle it cycling. But I can't handle it running, I average about 155 running. I am 36 yrs old and weight 146 lbs and may have a higher heart rate when I work out than some. Your calories do seem really low for your effort I would constantly check what your heart rate is when you are working out, sometimes it doesn't read right and then you won't get an accurate calories burned. Also are you using it right, check your manual, if you don't have one you can get the online usually.
  • PLUMSGRL
    PLUMSGRL Posts: 1,134 Member
    Options
    Trust your HRM (especially if you can set the VO2). It is the most accurate for each individual that uses it.
    MFP is an estimate only, the machine at you gym can't tell how much effort you're putting in, so also an estimate.
    You and I can do the exact same work out (and weigh the same), but do to the quality and effort put into the work out, have different calories burned~
  • itwasntme
    itwasntme Posts: 28 Member
    Options
    The only exercise where my HRM matches MFP is walking. Other than walking my HRM shows a lot lower calorie burn then what MFP estimates.
  • kennie2
    kennie2 Posts: 1,171 Member
    Options
    yeah mine is usually half the machines
    and biking isnt like sprinting
    my heart rate is usually on like 180
    and i burn about 400calories an hour
  • smudger_24
    smudger_24 Posts: 107 Member
    Options
    Th HRM will be correct (unless you get it checked and it proven faulty) MFP and the machines in gym tend to well over estimate. You may just be fitter than you think, at 16 stone I would burn 750 - 800 cals in an hour on a crosstrainer, now I only burn around 400, its just because I am fitter than I used to be and not as over weight, frustrating as it is its the truth!!

    Keep at it though, if you are losing and feeling fitter and better for it the numbers shouldnt matter too much x
  • jaysonhijinx
    jaysonhijinx Posts: 663 Member
    Options
    Funny reading people having experience with HRM's logging less than MFP... I have a Polar FT7 and use it whenever playing basketball (in a non-comp environment), walking, jogging and even when strength training and the read outs are always higher than what MFP estimates. At first I thought it was high but had a run with an FT80 and got near identical results so I'll always log my HRM data over MFP estimates or a gym equipment read out.
  • dare2love81
    dare2love81 Posts: 928 Member
    Options
    Depends on the HRM. I have two: a Polar FT7 and a Timex. The Timex consistently shows about double the calories burned as my Polar. So I usually count what my Polar says, just to be on the conservative side, especially on days where I eat back my exercise calories....last thing I want to do is eat back more than what I really burned. But it sure is frustrating to see huge differences depending on where you look for calories burned. It'd be nice if the estimates were closer together, even though I know that yes - at the end of the day, they are just estimates.
  • ElHombre23
    ElHombre23 Posts: 126 Member
    Options
    I just got my HRM and so far its coming below what MFP calculates not by much about 60 calories or so.
  • marsellient
    marsellient Posts: 591 Member
    Options
    I purchased a (Polar) HRM for exactly this reason, after reading on the forums here that it was the most accurate way to get the calorie count. What I'd like to know is why when I enter exactly the same information into the ellipticals at the gym as I have in my monitor, and when the monitor actually links to the elliptical, and when my heart rate is the same on the HRM and the elliptical readout, the calorie burn reading is so far off. My husband says its because the manufacturers want you to think you're burning a lot of calories. Anyone else have this happen?
  • frugalmomsrock
    frugalmomsrock Posts: 1,123
    Options
    Whenever I use a machine at the gym that gives a calorie count, it is usually DOUBLE what my HRM says.
    Same thing goes for what MFP estimates.
    I was pretty disappointed about this at first.... I was thinking about calling Polar and seeing if my HRM was malfunctioning or something. But that is just hopeful thinking probably~

    I've noticed the same :/ It seems that my heart rate usually doesn't get terribly high during a 30-40 minute workout on the elliptical at the gym. It seemed that: My HRM calories burned << MFP calories burned < elliptical machine reading for calories burned.

    I've found that when I wear my HRM for playing hockey, my calories burnt are much higher than I expected... up to 900 for two hockey games (games are 45 minutes, and I usually play 1/3-1/2 of the game.. but I guess my heart rate gets so high when I am playing, that I am still burning calories when I am resting during the game).


    Same! I was a little disappointed when I got mine, but in the long run, it's a great tool because I know more accurately what I'm actually burning instead of it just being a crap shoot. ;)

    As for the elliptical burn. I get a hella! burn by doing it in HIIT. I do level 10-12, depending how I feel that day... I do a little warm up (3 minutes or so), and then I go just as fast as I can for 30 seconds. Then slow 30 seconds. Then fast 30 seconds. Then slow for 45 seconds. Then fast for 45 seconds. Slow for 45 seconds. Fast for 45 seconds. Slow for 1 minute. Fast for 1 minute. Slow for 1 minute. Fast for 1 minute. Slow for 1m 15s, Fast for 1m 15s, slow for 1m 15s, fast for 1m 15s, slow for 1m 30s, fast 1m 30s, slow 1m 30s, fast 1m 30s... 1m 45s the same, then up to 2m the same, then up to 2m 15s the same, then 2m 30s the same. Then I go back down. 2:15 intervals, 2:00 intervals, 1:45 intervals down to the 30 seconds. Then I just go a steady pace a few minutes to slow it all back down. This is the ONLY way I get over a 10 calorie/minute average on the elliptical anymore. I used to all the time...
  • RachelsReboot
    RachelsReboot Posts: 569 Member
    Options
    My HRM is always lower than MFP, just makes me work that much harder!

Categories