Do the Map My Fitness apps still greatly overestimate calories burned?

ent3rsandman

I've been using MapMyRide and MapMyRun, but I'm always a little skeptical about the amount of calories the apps say I've burned. I read old posts about MMF being notoriously generous with its calorie count, but does it still have those issues? If so, can someone recommend an alternative fitness tracker, preferably one that takes elevation and maybe even wind resistance into account?

For the record, it says I've burned about 300 calories for 9 miles of biking at about 9-10mph with 165ft of elevation gained, and 420 calories for 3.3 miles of jogging at a pace of about 11 minutes per mile (maybe allowing 8-10 minutes of walking mixed in since I'm bad at running) with 125ft of elevation gained.

sijomial

I only briefly used MapMyRide and found the calories comically high. A bit like MyFitnessPal cycling calories really.
Strava app I find reasonable but it doesn't take wind/aero into account.
I'm a road cyclist not off road though - was your 9 mile ride on the dirt or the roads? Big difference in rolling resistance which is the predominate factor at low speeds.

For running/walking suggest you calibrate yourself on a level run/walk with the common formulae:
Net Running calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in miles)
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)

Walking is a far more energy efficient way to move your mass over distance - hence the different efficiency ratios.

ent3rsandman

sijomial wrote: »

I only briefly used MapMyRide and found the calories comically high. A bit like MyFitnessPal cycling calories really.
Strava app I find reasonable but it doesn't take wind/aero into account.
I'm a road cyclist not off road though - was your 9 mile ride on the dirt or the roads? Big difference in rolling resistance which is the predominate factor at low speeds.

For running/walking suggest you calibrate yourself on a level run/walk with the common formulae:
Net Running calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.63) x (Distance in miles)
Net Walking calories Spent = (Body weight in pounds) x (0.30) x (Distance in miles)

Walking is a far more energy efficient way to move your mass over distance - hence the different efficiency ratios.

Thanks for the formulas! I'll check out Strava.

As for where my biking takes place, it's all road/sidewalk. The only resistance I really have to face is Texas weather!

Bluepegasus

I find my map my run to be fairly ok, as a general loose rule, you burn around 100 calories for every mile run.

Jabbarwocky

I've heard good and bad about my map run but never used it myself. I have a fitbit charge 2 and am still trying to figure out how accurate it is. It takes into consideration heart rate and elevation but I cant say that I've heard of any trackers yet that can measure resistance. Doesn't mean theyre not out there, just that I've never heard of them. For what its worth, even though there are some accuracy issues with the fitbit, it has definitely helped me keep on track. If nothing else, it reminds me throughout the day to get off my *kitten* and move!

jjpptt2

MFP has always been pretty good/close for me. I know MFP takes a lot of flak for their estimates, but I've never had a problem using them. For the basic activities I do, they are always within a reasonable margin for error when compared to my garmin (which is also never right, according to MFP).

NorthCascades

ent3rsandman wrote: »

I've been using MapMyRide and MapMyRun, but I'm always a little skeptical about the amount of calories the apps say I've burned. I read old posts about MMF being notoriously generous with its calorie count, but does it still have those issues? If so, can someone recommend an alternative fitness tracker, preferably one that takes elevation and maybe even wind resistance into account?

For the record, it says I've burned about 300 calories for 9 miles of biking at about 9-10mph with 165ft of elevation gained, and 420 calories for 3.3 miles of jogging at a pace of about 11 minutes per mile (maybe allowing 8-10 minutes of walking mixed in since I'm bad at running) with 125ft of elevation gained.

How would any app take wind resistance into account? Unless you can measure the wind speed and air pressure yourself, no app can possibly know what it was. Were you out in the open, or in the lee of a building? Drafting someone or riding solo? On the tops, hoods, in the drops? Backpack? What's your CdA (drag coefficient)? Maybe you're thinking you could look up some weather service but it'll be averaged across a large area and you probably didn't ride one way in a straight line.

Strava does an interesting and reasonable job of estimating bike calories, with the one big caveat that they get everything I just mentioned wrong. They adjust pretty well for speed and elevation but they know absolutely nothing about the air resistance you faced.

ent3rsandman

NorthCascades wrote: »

ent3rsandman wrote: »

I've been using MapMyRide and MapMyRun, but I'm always a little skeptical about the amount of calories the apps say I've burned. I read old posts about MMF being notoriously generous with its calorie count, but does it still have those issues? If so, can someone recommend an alternative fitness tracker, preferably one that takes elevation and maybe even wind resistance into account?

For the record, it says I've burned about 300 calories for 9 miles of biking at about 9-10mph with 165ft of elevation gained, and 420 calories for 3.3 miles of jogging at a pace of about 11 minutes per mile (maybe allowing 8-10 minutes of walking mixed in since I'm bad at running) with 125ft of elevation gained.

How would any app take wind resistance into account? Unless you can measure the wind speed and air pressure yourself, no app can possibly know what it was. Were you out in the open, or in the lee of a building? Drafting someone or riding solo? On the tops, hoods, in the drops? Backpack? What's your CdA (drag coefficient)? Maybe you're thinking you could look up some weather service but it'll be averaged across a large area and you probably didn't ride one way in a straight line.

Strava does an interesting and reasonable job of estimating bike calories, with the one big caveat that they get everything I just mentioned wrong. They adjust pretty well for speed and elevation but they know absolutely nothing about the air resistance you faced.

Wasn't limiting it to apps; I'd buy any piece of technology that can account for the Texas winds during storm season. Thanks, though; I might just alternate between MMR and Strava and see which one appears to be the more reasonable. Doesn't really matter in the long run since I don't eat back my calories from exercise, but being accurate in any case is always fun!

NorthCascades

@ent3rsandman

A power meter can account for the wind, but only on a bike.

Mine is in the pedals, but they're also made into hubs in the rear wheel, and parts of the crank. They use strain gauges (like a scale) to measure deflection, from which they know torque vector, and motion sensors to measure angular velocity. With those two things you have power, and 1 watt = 1 Joule / second, where 1 Joule = 1 calorie with a small c for humans on a bike. That's the most accurate way to measure energy expenditure outside a laboratory. Maximum error is 5% and if you assume 1 kJoule = 1 kCal that puts you right in the middle of the error range.

It works against winds because speed = power * all opposing forces. You record your power with a GPS unit that also records your speed, and if you really wanted to, you could use a power meter to test one jacket against another to see which is more aerodynamic.

sarahbetherck

I assume they're high so I only eat back a small portion of my exercise calories