Endomondo 810 Calories, MFP 562 Calories

Jlennhikes
Jlennhikes Posts: 290 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
That's a pretty big gap. I get that they're variations, and I want to be conservative, but it seems like Endomondo has more info about terrain, etc., so more accuracy, but Endomondo is also higher than the results I got from mapmyhike. Should I split the difference? I eat a portion of my exercise calories, 25-75%.

Replies

  • faceoff4
    faceoff4 Posts: 1,599 Member
    My experience is MFP calculators are way off and most times error too low. I use a HRM for every exercise I do and when I compare that to MfP there is usually a big gap too. If you can try using a HRM as it will give you the most accurate burn. It's hard to say what your true burn is compared to the sites as everyone will burn cals differently depending on a lot of factors. Hope this helps!
  • kelooki
    kelooki Posts: 22
    MFP exercise calories are off. I go by the general rule of 100 calories per mile/100 calories per 20ish minutes of activity. This works best for me as a general rule (years and years of fitness training).

    MFP likes to tell me that my hour of rugby burns 800-1000 calories. A fact of which I do not believe in the least.

    I would average them or go closer to the number you feel represents the calories burned. Or, experiment. Do a week where you follow on MFP and a week where you follow Endomondo.
  • michellemybelll
    michellemybelll Posts: 2,228 Member
    it's been my experience that endomondo WAAAY over estimates. I'd go with MFP calories burned.
  • RTDice
    RTDice Posts: 193 Member
    I've found - when my HRM was working - that endomondo - although overestimating some - was far closer than the generic MFP database. I often go walking with a friend - MFP has us burning the same, whereas endomondo gives me more than her. I feel that's about right as endomondo has taken account of the fact it take more calories to move a 300lb (ok now 275) weight than it does a 147lb one.

    The other reason I like it is because it knows exactly how far you've travelled, at what speed and how for long. So if you're doing short distances at a higher speed, over a longer distance (C25k for example) it has the higher burn rate for those and the lower burn rate for the bits in between.

    I would love to be able to try hooking a bluetooth HRM to the premium version to see how the numbers look then, but unless you've got a HRM it is all an estimate.

    NB: MFP doesn't sync your weight changes back to endomondo, so as you blast off those pounds/kilos don't forget to adjust it on their website too or it will get increasing more inaccurate.
  • Jlennhikes
    Jlennhikes Posts: 290 Member
    Thanks for that info. I think I'm off to Amazon for a HRM.
  • denjario
    denjario Posts: 2
    Endomondo bases its estimated calorie expenditures off of your personal data (weight, height, age & gender) against the MET (Metabolic Equivalent) listed in the Compendium of Physical Activity (CPA). The data in the CPA is significantly well researched and any calculations based on it are quite accurate. On top of that, the topographical information from your area as read by your device's GPS are used to assist with accuracy (though terrain features such as trees or bridges can sometimes cause brief interference).

    Endo is pretty spot on, I use it over MFP for everything when I have to estimate a task. Though it is entirely dependent on your GPS accuracy, so if you suspect your device is off significantly, then you can go to the following site and do a basic estimate which should be closer to actual amounts than MFP:

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/activity-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

Categories