Calories Burnt - conflicting data with MFP vs RK vs HRmon

JustinJoanknecht
JustinJoanknecht Posts: 17 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Looking for some guidance here........I've been using runkeeper to track my calories burnt when walking/running/cycling as it takes into account elevation etc

I generally find that it shows for more calories used than MFPs estimate and they do seem quite high (eg 800 calories for a 4 mile walk at 4.5mph over a varied elevation) but had attributed that to my large weight and size (I'm 1.94m tall and currently 103.4kg in weight....)

Since getting a Heart Rate Monitor (Polar FT7) I'm showing a massively lower number of calories burnt (eg about 300-400 calories for the same distance above walk) and am now highly confused as to which is most accurate.

I've double checked the settings on all 3 things and they are definitely correct - so which is more accurate? And if it is the Heart Rate monitor, does this mean I'm "fitter" than I thought?

for reference, I do play a lot of high-intensity squash and my resting heart rate is pretty low (approx 40 bpm)

Any advice/thoughts appreciated.....thanks

Replies

  • JustinJoanknecht
    JustinJoanknecht Posts: 17 Member
    anyone???
  • Hendrix7
    Hendrix7 Posts: 1,903 Member
    the heart rate monitor will be more accurate.

    From what I have seen on here with other people posting their calorie burns, MFP seems to waaaaaay overestimate calorie output for some people.
  • knk1553
    knk1553 Posts: 438 Member
    Heart Rate Monitor as long as its set up properly with your weight and such. It calculates calories burned based off of your heart rate. For the average person walking 1 mile at 4.0 mph would burn around 100 calories, so the HRM is probably the most correct. I would say if you don't like the numbers push yourself harder to get your heartrate up higher to burn more calories
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    The heart rate monitor should be more accurate. However, you have an abnormally low resting heart rate. Does that reflect amazing fitness, or a genetic predisposition to a low HR? I suspect the latter, and if that's correct, then the HR isn't going to be as accurate for you because your max HR will be significantly lower than the estimate the HR monitor is using. Also, I assume you're using a high quality HRM that has a chest strap, like a Polar? If so, you might want to consider upgrading to a version that has a fit test and that you can manually set your max HR. If your max HR is set lower, if would give you a more accurate calorie burn because it would base it on what percentage of YOUR max your working out at rather than the percentage of a hypothetical max.

    If you can't, or don't want to get a different HR monitor, I would probably go with MFP values for anything like walking and running - since it's between RK and the HRM. But, I wouldn't trust MFP for other types of calorie burns.

    You could also change your MFP settings to reflect your typical exercise instead of sedentary. This would give you higher daily calorie targets before your exercise and then when you enter your workouts, just record 1 calorie so you're not double dipping calories.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Heart Rate Monitor as long as its set up properly with your weight and such. It calculates calories burned based off of your heart rate. For the average person walking 1 mile at 4.0 mph would burn around 100 calories, so the HRM is probably the most correct. I would say if you don't like the numbers push yourself harder to get your heartrate up higher to burn more calories

    Sorry, that calculation is not even remotely correct. I've seen that theory "1 mile is about 100 calories regardless of your speed" and it's TOTAL BS. Maybe that works for someone that's very fit and a perfectly normal weight, but it's wrong for me, according to all online estimates and my HRM. I would burn 150 to 200 calories for that workout. The issue is that the estimate doesn't account for fitness level or body size at all. And I'm surprised that people actually think that's a legitimate estimate.
  • JustinJoanknecht
    JustinJoanknecht Posts: 17 Member
    Thanks all. It's a Polar FT7 and is set up correctly for sure. My fitness is pretty good (play a lot of squash) but I wouldn't say athlete level! So think the low RHR is genetic........

    Think I will have to look into working out a max HR test...........somehow!
  • JustinJoanknecht
    JustinJoanknecht Posts: 17 Member
    ok so have played some very hard games of squash recently and my max heart rate only ever got to 168 at peak..........I am going to go and do a hill running stress test also and see how high I can get it also....currently I have it programmed for an MHR of 182 (ie 220 minus my age) so maybe it is lower.........
  • MelissaGraham7
    MelissaGraham7 Posts: 406 Member
    I always take 3 sources and AVERAGE them. That way, I feel like I might be getting the closest. I use my HR monitor; I use this web site: http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm; and I use a third from on line for whatever my activity. I average the 3 and take that figure (or MFP if I don't have a third source). It isn't rocket science so it doesn't matter specifically unless you are going to eat back all of the calories in which case you are best to go with your lowest figure as we tend to under estimate how much we eat and over estimate how much we burn.
  • MelissaGraham7
    MelissaGraham7 Posts: 406 Member
    I've read quite a bit of different sources that all agree with the 100 calories per mile burn based upon a 150 pound person. It also tends to agree with my HRM. SO, I weigh 180 pounds which is actually 20% more than the 150 - therefore, my calculation is 120 calories per 1 mile. I'm also a bit slow. That calculation seems to be about for a 10-12 minute mile. It is pretty accurate for me. You are correct that if I was a lot heavier, I'd burn even more. i.e., if I were 300 pounds, I'd burn 150 calories per mile. If I were a lot faster but lighter, I would also burn more. It is still a really good formula for most of us non-athletes trying to lose weight. Again, I use that figure, plus my Garmin, plus the http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm figure and average them. It all works and I usually only eat back about 50% of my calories but that is a whole 'nother big old argument. :wink:
  • EllieMo
    EllieMo Posts: 131 Member
    I would trust the HRM more - it's the only one that has any indication of your actual exertion effor, RunKeeper and MFP are just estimating based on averages. But just speaking from personal experience - are you absolutely sure the HRM is set properly. The reason I ask is that I couldn't understand why mine was giving such high calorie readings until I rechecked the settings and looked properly at howVO2 Max is measured! Turns out the setting on mine was way off, now that I have set it it's giving much more sensible burns. Due, I admit, to me not having a clue what VO2 Max actually was! So may be worth double checking just in case there is anything similar on your HRM?
  • bacamacho
    bacamacho Posts: 306 Member
    My HRM is lower than everything else and I go with that. For one, it's tracking my actual heart rate, and two I'd rather be under estimating than over.

Categories