Polar FT7 shows I burned 500 calories less than MFP???

bush_woman187
bush_woman187 Posts: 25 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Hello everyone. I just got the FT7 yesterday. I worked out today and did 30 minutes on the exercize stationary bike. MFP calculates 676 calories. Imagine how floored I was when my new FT7 said 186 calories!! I have heard of people saying the HRM calculates less than MFP, but that is one heck of a difference. I wet the strap as indicated in the instructions. I spent the first 5 minutes burning 35 calories at the average hr of 140 with a max of 147. The fatburn was 1:49 and fitness 2:45 minutes. I checked to make sure the strap was still wet becasue MFP would have calculated the first 5 minutes at that speed at over 100 calories. The second portion I worked out was 151 calories burned in 25 mins. The fatburn was 14 mins and fitness was 11.22. The average hr was 121 and the max was 136.

The FT7 calories was very close to what is on the stationary bike, but that does not take into account my height and weight. Has anyone else experienced this? Any advise is appreciated. I am very surprized MFP is that far off.

Thanks!
«1

Replies

  • GinnieC100
    GinnieC100 Posts: 48 Member
    I find that MFP calculates really high. I have the FT7 also and go by the calories burned there. I find it much more reasonable, especially if you are going to eat back your exercise calories.
  • bush_woman187
    bush_woman187 Posts: 25 Member
    Thanks Ginny. It just seems weird that its 500 calories off. I wonder if I set my HRM correctly?
  • jcperkns
    jcperkns Posts: 109
    I would belive my HRM before MFP. 676 calories seems VERY high for 30 minutes on a stationary bike.
  • wellbert
    wellbert Posts: 3,924 Member
    Surprise! You weren't working out as hard as you thought you were. That's the problem with MFP calorie estimates.

    186 /30 seems very reasonable for a stationary bike. Especially the way most people use them.

    Still, make sure your height/weight/gender are input correctly.
  • Speedtrap
    Speedtrap Posts: 216
    Be sure you have your HRM set up correct with height and weight as well, mine was way off before I entered my info in it.
  • ShannonMpls
    ShannonMpls Posts: 1,936 Member
    Double check your age, weight, and height settings.

    But yeah, like others said, 676 calories for 30 minutes is realllllly high. That's my burn working my tail off for an hour.
  • Yanicka1
    Yanicka1 Posts: 4,564 Member
    Sound right to me.
  • amanda52488
    amanda52488 Posts: 260 Member
    I got the polar ft7 a few weeks ago, and was also shocked at how low my calorie burns were! Even compared to my bodybugg that I was previously using!!

    Oh well..
  • _Refried_
    _Refried_ Posts: 194
    I don't trust mfp calculators at all, my ft40 usually says I burn 700-1000 calories during my workout and MFP usually will tell me 2000+
  • jodibelle
    jodibelle Posts: 79 Member
    Double check your age, weight, and height settings.

    But yeah, like others said, 676 calories for 30 minutes is realllllly high. That's my burn working my tail off for an hour.

    ^ This ^
  • BerryH
    BerryH Posts: 4,698 Member
    Sounds about right, I burnt 210 in 30 mins on my stationary bike yesterday at a heart rate of between 75 - 85 % max, which left me dripping and was just 2/3 of what MFP gave me! Some MFP estimates are OK but it seems it estimates non-weight-bearing exercise very high. On the other hand you may be pleasantly surprised with the burn you get for walking fast or running because that is weight-bearing and gets your heart rate up more easily :flowerforyou:
  • tcm118
    tcm118 Posts: 54
    I have the FT7 as well, but my calories are always underestimated on MFP...significantly. My HR goes way up very quickly and stays there during my workouts. I'll burn 800 calories in 45 minutes with my HR hovering in the 170-190 range. MFP would have calculated somewhere around 400 I think. I would go with your HRM reading. However, check to make sure you input your height/weight/gender correctly.
  • nessa786
    nessa786 Posts: 107 Member
    Wow that is a big difference. I personally use my HRM when I work out. I have never had that big of difference between the 2 though.
  • gtwin
    gtwin Posts: 290 Member
    I have an FT7 also...it's always accurate and always under what MFP suggests. So definitely go with your HRM. I know it's a shock to see such a low calorie burn...but 676 calories for only 30 minutes is very high, you'd have to really be kicking that machine's butt! Like some other folks said, maybe you weren't working as hard as you thought....that's why HRM's are a great investment, lets you know how much you're really pushing and how much further you need to push.
  • fittorow
    fittorow Posts: 28
    No - MFP shows you burn 676 calories for 30 minutes on the exercise bike for "very vigorous effort" - for "light effort," it says that you burn about 150-200 calories, depending on how much you weigh. Obviously you thought that you worked out at very vigorous effort, when actually, you were only expending very light effort.
    Not criticizing you or anything, just wanted to make sure you knew.
  • kristelpoole
    kristelpoole Posts: 440 Member
    No - MFP shows you burn 676 calories for 30 minutes on the exercise bike for "very vigorous effort" - for "light effort," it says that you burn about 150-200 calories, depending on how much you weigh. Obviously you thought that you worked out at very vigorous effort, when actually, you were only expending very light effort.
    Not criticizing you or anything, just wanted to make sure you knew.

    Yep, I imagine a seriously intense spin class could allow a large person or a man to burn 676 calories in just 30 minutes, but not a traditional person on a traditional stationery bike. Trust the HRM. Otherwise, there'd be a line out the door for the bikes. LOL
  • arc918
    arc918 Posts: 2,037 Member
    I'm guessing the HRM is telling the something much closer to the truth than MFP.

    676 in 30 minutes is some serious biking = crazy high.
  • glittersoul
    glittersoul Posts: 666 Member
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/182246-low-calorie-burn-w-hrm

    This happened to me too. I returned mine and eventually bought a polar f4 and it works well.
  • jenny95662
    jenny95662 Posts: 997 Member
    Thanks Ginny. It just seems weird that its 500 calories off. I wonder if I set my HRM correctly?

    u did mfp would say i burned about 600 cals and my hrm would say 200
  • samikingsley
    samikingsley Posts: 8
    On the stationary bike for 15 mins I burn 192 calories with MFP :) Seemed reasonable to me, if I do 30 mins its usually 250 I believe.
  • gsager
    gsager Posts: 977 Member
    Hello everyone. I just got the FT7 yesterday. I worked out today and did 30 minutes on the exercize stationary bike. MFP calculates 676 calories. Imagine how floored I was when my new FT7 said 186 calories!! I have heard of people saying the HRM calculates less than MFP, but that is one heck of a difference. I wet the strap as indicated in the instructions. I spent the first 5 minutes burning 35 calories at the average hr of 140 with a max of 147. The fatburn was 1:49 and fitness 2:45 minutes. I checked to make sure the strap was still wet becasue MFP would have calculated the first 5 minutes at that speed at over 100 calories. The second portion I worked out was 151 calories burned in 25 mins. The fatburn was 14 mins and fitness was 11.22. The average hr was 121 and the max was 136.

    The FT7 calories was very close to what is on the stationary bike, but that does not take into account my height and weight. Has anyone else experienced this? Any advise is appreciated. I am very surprized MFP is that far off.


    Thanks!

    Your heart rate monitor is right. If it isn't wet or getting a connection it will tell you it won't just give you a wrong reading.
  • lauraloo83
    lauraloo83 Posts: 42 Member
    Hey Hun the HRM will always be more accurate. I'm scared to go by mfp because the cals in exercise here don't take into account your personal stats. Say you were 30 stone & really unfit the calories you burn would be far greater than if you were 9 stone and super fit. Although its disheartening what your monitor says in comparison You'd be upset if you ate over your cals because of inaccurate measurements xxx
  • boggsmeister
    boggsmeister Posts: 292 Member
    My HRM often shows calorie burns higher than MFP. Then again I am 6'3" and 300 pounds so that makes a real difference. 186 for 30 minutes of the exercise bike sounds right. Over 600 is fantastically unrealistic.
  • bush_woman187
    bush_woman187 Posts: 25 Member
    i was going 18mph which is supposed to be vigorous. I'd rather count what I 'm actualy doing, but wow, I was eating some of those calories back, not sure how i actually lost weight! I wanted to see if anyone else experienced that. I am a larger woman and wasn't sure if maybe the strap was too tight or not tight enough or if I just wasn't working out as hard as MFP said I should. :-) Thanks for the feedback.
  • bush_woman187
    bush_woman187 Posts: 25 Member
    I am 5'4 and over 200 lbs so any exercise I do makes me sweat and I feel like my heart is racing. :-) If I were 150 lbs I would expect that the burn rate would be much less, but at such a high weight, although I have lost 38 lbs, i would think the rate would be more than that.
  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    600+ seems way too high but 186 seems too low if you really are working out hard during the 30 minutes. Not sure of your weight, but when I was around 200 lbs, I probably burned about 280 in 30 minutes of stationary bike, but I also did a little hand weight work at the same time. can you check during your workout that your HR is still picking up? And double-check your settings.

    ETA just saw where you posted your weight ;)
  • jerrbear67
    jerrbear67 Posts: 36 Member
    I've also just purchased the Polar FT7 as well. Here are my results so far.

    For Elliptical training on my Precor 5.17 for 30 minutes with my heart rate 11:46 min in fat burn (below 123 bpm) and 18:16 min in fitness (above 123 bpm). I am 45 years old, 5 ft 7 in and 254 lbs.

    MFP says I've burned 560 cal
    My elliptical says i've burned 412 cal
    My Polar FT7 states I've burned 289 cal.

    I was marking down what my elliptical stated, but since I've purchased the FT7, this is what I record.
  • ColleenAtherton
    ColleenAtherton Posts: 230 Member
    After getting my FT7 I was very surprised at the difference between my HRM and MFP. In my experience, MFP grossly overestimates burns. However, I did go on a 5.5 mile walk last week @ 3 mph and my HRM showed 944 calories burnt and MFP was only going to give me 400! :noway: I'm sooo glad I got my HRM!
  • skullshank
    skullshank Posts: 4,323 Member
    i was going 18mph which is supposed to be vigorous. I'd rather count what I 'm actualy doing, but wow, I was eating some of those calories back, not sure how i actually lost weight! I wanted to see if anyone else experienced that. I am a larger woman and wasn't sure if maybe the strap was too tight or not tight enough or if I just wasn't working out as hard as MFP said I should. :-) Thanks for the feedback.

    how much resistance? i think that needs to be taken into account as well.
    18mph on a flat will obviously not get your HR up the way 18mph on any sort of incline would.

    trust your hrm more than mfp.
    and just as a rule of thumb...pick the lower number! its best to underestimate burns than overestimate...
    don't wanna eat back calories based on an inflated number. :)
  • bush_woman187
    bush_woman187 Posts: 25 Member
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/182246-low-calorie-burn-w-hrm

    This happened to me too. I returned mine and eventually bought a polar f4 and it works well.

    did you find that the FT4 is much different than the FT7?

Categories