Could my hrm be right....

Yes absolutely possible. 87 minutes is a long time so if it's at all strenuous activity then certainly could burn that much. It's pretty common to hear intense DVD programs such as P90X and Insanity to have that level of calorie burn. For example, I burned 609 today with an Insanity workout that was about 40 minutes long...and that was not even full throttle as I just started and cannot do the entire thing.

That sounds really high to me.

It would take you ~ 9 miles of running to burn 1,100 kcals.

I find that, generally, MFP's values are close but not perfect. It's not really the fault of MFP, it's just that there numbers seem to be averages whereas real life is often about being above or below the average.

I tested this out on my cycle commute yesterday. Usually, I just use MFP's values for tracking my commute because I'm not worried about being terribly exact for anything but my actual workouts. Yesterday, for the first time in a long time, I strapped on the HRM for the rides. On the way to work, MFP guessed 323 while my HRM said 239. On the way home, however, MFP guessed 269 but the HRM said 473.

The reason for the gap is simple. My commute to work is pretty much all downhill so it's fast, if short. The high average speed tricks MFP into overestimating my effort. On the slow slog back up the hill, the opposite happens. My speed is slow but my effort is much more intense (big guy + bike + hill = lots of sweat and strain).

So it is possible that the difference is that much but you probably would have had to really push it. If you were just giving an average amount of effort, I'd say get the HRM checked out just in case.

I burned 5225 calories today over a six hour period, that averages out to about 870 calories per hour.... so it's not out of the question that you can burn 1,000 an hour.

I burned 5225 calories today over a six hour period, that averages out to about 870 calories per hour.... so it's not out of the question that you can burn 1,000 an hour.

Assuming your calorie burn is accurate. What were you doing? Running a marathon?

I bought an hrm the other day and it says that my calorie burn is way higher than what Mfp tells me. It does have a chest band, and I input age, weight, height, and gender. I do a workout Dvd that incorporates walking, resistance band, intervals ect. It is 87 min. Long and I had been entering it as aerobics general. Mfp gave me 771 caps burned but my hrm said 1100 ish. I am 5'6 and 175 #s. Not sure if I should trust the hrm or Mfp. Any advice would be appreciated.

It is difficult for any table or database to accurately estimate calories burned during a workout class (as opposed to a single, steady-state activity like walking). However, HRMs have lots of flaws themselves.

In this particular case, MFP is much closer than your HRM numbers, but that doesn't necessarily mean MFP is more accurate. It could be as much coincidence as anything else.

What I do know is that the HRM numbers are way off. Either you have a lesser-quality brand that is not programming with very accurate equations, the HRM is significantly overestimating your fitness level, your actual max HR is significantly higher than the number the HRM calculated for you, or a combination of all three.

Everyone on MFP needs to have a LOT less trust in their HRMs. They aren't that accurate, and surely aren't as accurate as a lot of people on this site seem to believe.

Not what people want to hear, but what they need to hear. Great point DavPul. These things can accurately read your heart rate, which isn't that technologically difficult. Everything else is based on mathematical calculations which only provide a guess since everyone's body is different. If you enter your age, weight, resting heat rate, etc., it will provide a "better" guess, but it is still a guess.

......and I agree you can burn 1,000 calories in an hour, but you would need to be doing something very intensive such as continuous running (not a mild jog) for that hour. A DVD program that involves walking and stretch bands isn't likely to burn anywhere near that.

Everyone on MFP needs to have a LOT less trust in their HRMs. They aren't that accurate, and surely aren't as accurate as a lot of people on this site seem to believe.

Put it this way, if they did what people here think the do, the manufacturers would call them Calories Burned Monitors, not Heart Rate Monitors. There is a very, very good reason the legal dept at Polar or Fitbit or whoever don't call them CBMs.

Well put. And another thing: if you read the manuals that come with the Polar products, there is only the briefest mention that they even HAVE a calorie counting feature.

Wow! Terrific point! I never looked at a manual before so I just downloaded the Polar S210. It's 91 pages, and there are only 4 pages that even mention calorie counting. And not 4 pages in a row. 4 pages in 4 different sections. We're talking about a few paragraphs total. They would devote as much space on how to use the thing as a paperweight.

http://education.polarusa.com/manuals/s210.pdf