Calories Burned: MapMyRun vs FitBit Charge 2

grayee

I'll start off with a scenario of mine: When I jog 3.75 miles, MapMyRun says I've burned 494 calories. My FitBit, however, says I've burned 659 calories. Do I merely go by the fact that FitBit monitors heartrate and not MMR therefore it's the accurate of the two?? What I've been doing is taking the mean of the two and logging that anount into MFP. Suggestions?? Does anyone else use both of these, and if so, what calories do you log?

MelmothWanders

Your understanding is correct. Fitbit is ostensibly more accurate because its estimate also factors in your heart rate. It is still only an estimate, however, and there's no completely accurate way to measure outside of a fitness lab, so see how your calorie intake and output adds up here on MyFitnessPal corresponding to your weight gain or loss over the course of several weeks to get a better idea of where your metabolism is at.

strongwouldbenice

Have you compared the distance that both think you run? I only got my Fitbit recently but I think my stride length needs to be adjusted because when I've used it it says I'm running further, and therefore faster, than my runkeeper app does.. the app works from gps so I trust that slightly more. That might contribute to a difference in burn.

DX2JX2

Depending on your weight, both seem high. Rule of thumb for incremental calories spent when running is that you burn about 0.63 of your body weight per mile.

A 150 pound person would burn about 350 calories extra when running 3.75 miles. MMR seems much more realistic.

stanmann571

Without knowing your weight, it's impossible to say.

However. IME, MapMyRun generally provides a ridiculously high estimate for calorie burn. The Fitbit being higher is thus even more suspect.

https://www.runnersworld.com/nutrition-weight-loss/a20843760/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn/

Use the calculation provided to get more close to accurate. as @DX2JX2 said 0.63*BW* mileage -most closely accurate estimate.

grayee

Strongwouldbenice, Fitbit actually says I run a slightly SHORTER distance than MMR, which is even more puzzling lol.
DX2JX2 and stamann571, I weigh 180lbs so 425.25 calories burned is outcome of formula for 3.75 miles. Hmm. Wonder why both are substantially higher. A little frustrating!

grayee

Also, what is the pace that goes with this formula? Clearly if I am doing a 13-min mile I am going to burn less than if I do a 10-minute mile. Right?

NorthCascades

Pace doesn't make a big difference for the energy cost of a run. (Because your fast and slow paces aren't that far apart, it's not like how a road bike can do 5 mph or 30 mph and air resistance is a factor.) Just mass over distance.

DX2JX2

NorthCascades wrote: »

Pace doesn't make a big difference for the energy cost of a run. (Because your fast and slow paces aren't that far apart, it's not like how a road bike can do 5 mph or 30 mph and air resistance is a factor.) Just mass over distance.

This. Pace doesn't really matter as long as you're using a running stride (both feet leaving the ground at the same time). The main reason that running burns more calories than walking is because of the vertical distance traveled during the running stride. It might not seem like much, but if you jump 4 inches with each stride you'll actually end up with a vertical climb of something like 1/2 a mile over that 3.75 mile run.

grayee

Thanks for all the info, everyone. I am somewhat new to the jogging/running thing, and let me tell you--i LOVE it. Runner's high is quite a thing. You've all been helpful!