RunKeeper vs. Strava (run, bike, hike)

moonangel12

For anyone that has used both can you share your preference and pros and cons of each? I started with RK 2 years ago because I really liked the beta C25K plan they had going. I am hesitant to switch and have to start over with my data on another App. I also was talking to a biker that had stopped for a break at the river and he mentioned the heat mapping on Strava, but it’s not looking like it offers huge amounts of useable information for me in my immediate area (maybe I haven’t found the right section in the app). Both have tracking which I like, going to compare the given information on my husband’s phone to see how they differ. I have noticed some GPS discrepancies between my Garmin and RK, now knowing that RK can be off anywhere between .01 and .35 miles in a short distance, but I recently discovered the option to “fix” the map and it lines up with the Garmin spot on when I do that. I did a virtual Sprint Tri this morning and ran all 3 simultaneously so I could better compare (haven’t taken the time to look closely at each side by side).

NorthCascades

Strava just moved their most iconic feature behind a paywall and a lot of people are unhappy about it.

Their global heat map is fantastic, you need an account to view it in detail, but you don't have to be an active user.

Jthanmyfitnesspal

The most common use of Strava is just as an "exercise social media" app. It's not a very good tracking app, actually. I used to not support treadmill or stationary bike at all, for example. Also, it's integration with external sensors (such at a HR strap) was buggy.

It's pretty common for people to buy into a Garmin watch and then link to Strava. Strava supports a wide range of tracking options. There is always a nagging question in the back of my mind wondering why I do it (and pay for Strava pro) but it has become my habit.

Shortgirlrunning

Neither stands out as better than the other one to me. Both have small discrepancies with my Garmin but are close. If you already have all your data in RK I probably wouldn’t bother switching.

sijomial

Not at all impressed with Runkeeper, low functionality, exaggerated calorie estimates.

Used Strava for 6yrs and find it good for tracking in the sense of reviewing my rides, used it for indoor stationary bike training (Wattbike Hub connecting to Strava), mostly road riding and some off road riding.
For sporting/serious riding I use a Garmin bike computer linked to Strava (power meter, HRM and cadence sensor linked via Garmin and then on to Strava.
For local trips I just use the phone app.
I've also used it to track walks and it tracks fine - I'm not a runner though.

Cycling calorie counts entirely reasonable for me as confirmed by use of a power meter - some rides high, some low but on average pretty good estimates. That might be a quirk as due to my upright riding position / poor aero its gross calorie estimates are very close to my actual net calories.

Also find it useful to track the usage of my bikes (for servicing schedules etc...).

As @NorthCascades alludes to Strava have recently made their segment leaderboard tracking a paid feature. That prompted me to pay for the service for first time - live segments are fun to chase down PR's!

Duck_Puddle

I have used Runkeeper for years. I like the voice prompts while running and the live tracking feature. Those are the primary reasons I use it. It’s not always great with GPS (sometimes way low, sometimes way high). Calorie estimates for not step-based activity (running, hiking or walking) can be high.

My Garmin data goes to strava. People I know who bike prefer Strava. It seems to do a better job with estimating some cycling metrics than RK. People who like chasing leaderboards/segment times like Strava. Strava shows only moving time so I don’t particularly like that (not sure if it’s a setting or if it’s due to the info coming over from Garmin vs being recorded directly).

I will continue to use Runkeeper because of the voice prompts and the live tracking. I would need to pay to get some of the same features on Strava like detailed HR info (and I’m not sure if they even do voice prompts? And/or live tracking?) and I’m not interested in paying.

I am predominantly a runner although I do hike a fair amount and bike for cross training. But my primary focus is on features that work well for running - and I don’t chase segments/leaderboards or any of that. I stick with RK for a phone app, but my primary training data (for everything) is through Garmin.

Edit-I also don’t really have any social media for my fitness things except mfp. I have a handful of RK friends(? They are also mfp friends), zero contacts on Garmin and my SIL on Strava. I have zero interaction with any of these people on these apps. That’s also not my thing. But if that kind of thing is important to you-Strava does have a much larger and more active community aspect.

moonangel12

I am so glad I asked! Very good information to consider! I am not a big social media person, I don’t have FB, Instagram, or anything like that. I post a little on here, and have an account on Pinterest but that’s more digital idea hoarding, less social interaction.

As of now I am definitely leaning towards sticking with RK, especially now that I have the glitchy GPS discrepancies somewhat smoothed out (for anyone else that uses it and hasn’t stumbled upon it, I click on my tracked activities, click on the map, and there is an option to “Fix GPS” - so far it has put it within .1 of my Garmin).

ETA: Since getting the Garmin Instinct, it is what I have linked to MFP for calorie tracking since it always went lower than RK.

Duck_Puddle

One thing to keep in mind on that-if you had Runkeeper linked to mfp before, it sent over your workout calories and that was the end of it.

If you’ve got a Garmin linked now (and you’re wearing it all day), it’ll send over your workouts but also your total calories burned for the day (that is what is on the entry in your diary that shows the number of steps). And mfp will use that number to calculate your exercise calorie adjustment.

So even though the calories for your workouts may be lower, you may end up with more exercise calories combined if your Garmin is estimating the burn from your daily activity to be higher than whatever your mfp setting is.

moonangel12

Duck_Puddle wrote: »

One thing to keep in mind on that-if you had Runkeeper linked to mfp before, it sent over your workout calories and that was the end of it.

If you’ve got a Garmin linked now (and you’re wearing it all day), it’ll send over your workouts but also your total calories burned for the day (that is what is on the entry in your diary that shows the number of steps). And mfp will use that number to calculate your exercise calorie adjustment.

So even though the calories for your workouts may be lower, you may end up with more exercise calories combined if your Garmin is estimating the burn from your daily activity to be higher than whatever your mfp setting is.

For some reason mine has never done that - only exercise calories. My old FitBit used to adjust throughout the day, but the Garmin never has... I assume a setting changed somewhere in the set up process. I linked the Garmin so that I didn’t double dip (and have to go back and delete the double entries) and it covers my extra activities like kayaking, SUPing, swimming, etc.

yirara

For running I use ismoothrun (iOS only). It's rather basic but does everything I need it to and the tracking seems rather good. Then I upload the data to my preferred site. For hiking I don't as I might be out and about for many hours, and my phone battery would suffer too much. But I think I set my step size quite well for my fitbit and trust the distance I get out of it enough to eat back the walking calories I calculated (not what fitbit calculates, mind. it gave me 2000 calories on Thursday when I was outside for 6 hours, walking 20km, playing a game, taking photos, resting from the heat). For cycling I guess a lot more. But I might also be out and about for many hours. Thus battery problem again.

heybales

moonangel12 wrote: »

Duck_Puddle wrote: »

One thing to keep in mind on that-if you had Runkeeper linked to mfp before, it sent over your workout calories and that was the end of it.

If you’ve got a Garmin linked now (and you’re wearing it all day), it’ll send over your workouts but also your total calories burned for the day (that is what is on the entry in your diary that shows the number of steps). And mfp will use that number to calculate your exercise calorie adjustment.

So even though the calories for your workouts may be lower, you may end up with more exercise calories combined if your Garmin is estimating the burn from your daily activity to be higher than whatever your mfp setting is.

For some reason mine has never done that - only exercise calories. My old FitBit used to adjust throughout the day, but the Garmin never has... I assume a setting changed somewhere in the set up process. I linked the Garmin so that I didn’t double dip (and have to go back and delete the double entries) and it covers my extra activities like kayaking, SUPing, swimming, etc.

Garmin default settings are infrequent syncs from device.
No sync from device, no GC sync to MFP.

Garmin doesn't assume some minimal burn rate until it receives the device data.

Fitbit assumed a barely above BMR burn rate and report that to MFP, until a device sync gave true figures then sync that too.

That may be it.