differences in calories burned

jodazary

when I key in my walks on here like tonight it said I used 274 calories but the map my walk app on my phone says I burned 325 what gives ?

IsaackGMOON

The Walking App won't be as accurate, as it can't measure your HR.

MFP isn't as accurate, as it can't measure your HR.

A HR monitor is relatively more accurate to the Walking App and MFP because it can monitor your HR.

strong_curves

Both are estimates, to be on the safe side I would go with the lower burn.

3dogsrunning

IsaackGMOON wrote: »

The Walking App won't be as accurate, as it can't measure your HR.

MFP isn't as accurate, as it can't measure your HR.

A HR monitor is relatively more accurate to the Walking App and MFP because it can monitor your HR.

And a HR monitor measures HR. There is not a direct relationship between HR and calories burned. A HR can provide an estimated under certain circumstances - moderate intensity steady state cardio. Unless you are speed walking, it likely won't fall under the parameters.

They are all estimates. Each use slightly different formulas to calculate calories burned. For things like walking, MFP is fairly accurate.

Either way, personally, I go for the lower estimate and use that.

Some good info on different methods
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/estimating-calories-activity-databases-198041

Kst76

Agree with above. It is all estimates. I currently use run keeper and I think it estimated a little high, however, I just put my starting weight 20 pounds below my actual weight and then I just go by the number of calories it gives me. 50 - 100 pounds off is no big deal to me.