Heart Rate Monitor vs. MFP Calculator

Folow your HRM. MFP is way off usually.

HRM is going to be more accurate because it measures the intensity of your workout (average HR during workout) while MFP makes assumptions.....pretty accurate assumptions but assumption none the less.

I was just about to post a similar topic as I purchased a HRM last week.

Seems that most people feel the MFP database estimates high but my HRM is giving me similar burns or sometimes even higher. I think the general nature of the database kind of limits things. It doesn't count for actual intensity so like someone else said it "assumes".

I'm gonna go with my HRM and see how that works for me.

It depends. If your HRM has a chest strap and allows you to at the very least enter you age, height, weight and sex, then I would go with the HRM. If it does not have a chest strap or does not allow you to input your sex, then I would go with whichever one is lower.

The HRM is probably more accurate, but it's based on assumptions too. There may be a strong correlation between heart rate and caloric burn (when I'm doing something that burns calories at a higher rate my heart rate is probably going to be elevated) but it's not a causal relationship. For example, let's imagine that there are two people with the same height, weight and age but one of them is heavily muscled and very fit and the other one is sedentary and obese. If they do the same activity (say, walking a certain distance) the MFP calculator will say that they burned the same number of calories. If they're wearing HRMs, the obese person will probably get a higher calorie burn, since they're not used to exercise and the fit person's heart rate might not even go up. In reality, though, the fit one will probably be burning more calories since they have more muscle.

To the OP, I would go with the lower number just to be safe. Oh and I should say that I have the same problem. I get a higher number with my HRM. In fact, I just went to get a new battery for it so I can start using it again. I would say that it depends on what type of exercise you're doing which one is more accurate. For instance, I ran my long run this past weekend on a very difficult mountain biking trail and was only able to manage about 5 MPH, so that's what I put into the MFP calculator. In reality, it felt like a much harder workout than when I run 6 MPH on pavement (my quads were actually sore the next day). Today, I'm going to be running hills, so I think it will be the same sort of thing. I'm going to wear the HRM and compare the two.

The HRM is probably more accurate, but it's based on assumptions too. There may be a strong correlation between heart rate and caloric burn (when I'm doing something that burns calories at a higher rate my heart rate is probably going to be elevated) but it's not a causal relationship. For example, let's imagine that there are two people with the same height, weight and age but one of them is heavily muscled and very fit and the other one is sedentary and obese. If they do the same activity (say, walking a certain distance) the MFP calculator will say that they burned the same number of calories. If they're wearing HRMs, the obese person will probably get a higher calorie burn, since they're not used to exercise and the fit person's heart rate might not even go up. In reality, though, the fit one will probably be burning more calories since they have more muscle.

To the OP, I would go with the lower number just to be safe. Oh and I should say that I have the same problem. I get a higher number with my HRM. In fact, I just went to get a new battery for it so I can start using it again. I would say that it depends on what type of exercise you're doing which one is more accurate. For instance, I ran my long run this past weekend on a very difficult mountain biking trail and was only able to manage about 5 MPH, so that's what I put into the MFP calculator. In reality, it felt like a much harder workout than when I run 6 MPH on pavement (my quads were actually sore the next day). Today, I'm going to be running hills, so I think it will be the same sort of thing. I'm going to wear the HRM and compare the two.

Novice question, but why would the fit person be burning more calories just because they have more muscle? Not sure I understand that statement.

Because muscles burn three times as many calories than fat does. This is why strength training is really really important (among so many other reasons).

The HRM is probably more accurate, but it's based on assumptions too. There may be a strong correlation between heart rate and caloric burn (when I'm doing something that burns calories at a higher rate my heart rate is probably going to be elevated) but it's not a causal relationship. For example, let's imagine that there are two people with the same height, weight and age but one of them is heavily muscled and very fit and the other one is sedentary and obese. If they do the same activity (say, walking a certain distance) the MFP calculator will say that they burned the same number of calories. If they're wearing HRMs, the obese person will probably get a higher calorie burn, since they're not used to exercise and the fit person's heart rate might not even go up. In reality, though, the fit one will probably be burning more calories since they have more muscle.

To the OP, I would go with the lower number just to be safe. Oh and I should say that I have the same problem. I get a higher number with my HRM. In fact, I just went to get a new battery for it so I can start using it again. I would say that it depends on what type of exercise you're doing which one is more accurate. For instance, I ran my long run this past weekend on a very difficult mountain biking trail and was only able to manage about 5 MPH, so that's what I put into the MFP calculator. In reality, it felt like a much harder workout than when I run 6 MPH on pavement (my quads were actually sore the next day). Today, I'm going to be running hills, so I think it will be the same sort of thing. I'm going to wear the HRM and compare the two.

That is not necessarily true. The fit person will likely burn more calories then the HRM says unless it allows the entry of V02Max. If it does, then the allowance for the fitness level of the person is worked in as well. The other factor that has to be incorporated in this is that the fit person is also more efficient at exercise, and that leads to a given activity taking less energy (calories) than it would if done less efficiently. I wish it was as easy as a fit person burning more calories because of more muscle, but it really is much more complex than that.

What kind of HRM's do ya'll have?? I still need to get one...