LG Health vs Map My Walk is map my walk more accurate ?

E7mack96

I currently use the LG health app for tracking my walks. I had switched to the advanced mode which let's you track the route, GPS, pace, mph, Yada Yada. On the basic mode, it records steps and distance and calories burned. If i walk on basic, calories burned is higher by a large margin. For a 10 mile walk at 4.0 mph, basic will show ~ 1050-1100 calories while advanced will be ~ 750 or so. My weight, height and such are entered. So I have been entering the lower of the 2 calorie readings. I just feel that the advanced mode is not accurate at increased paces. If i walk at 3.2 mph, the calories will be not much lower but I can tell you at 3.2 mph, no effort, heart rate is around 110, no sweat. At my pace of 4.0 to 4.2, I am burning much more. Heart rate is 140, I am clearly sweating.

What is anyone's experience with the map my walk app? Is it more accurate when factoring pace?

What would be expected caloric burn for a 262 lb guy walking at 4.0 consistent pace for 1 hour straight?

Jthanmyfitnesspal

The estimates of different apps disagree and it's irritating as f0ck!

Your 10 mile walk is taking you 2.5 hours and I would think this is in the 1000 kcal range-- at least. 15mm is a strong pace and you aren't a flyweight (yet!). I think the MFP running and walking calorie estimates are a pretty good guideline. If your app disagrees with them significantly, then it's time to use a different app. MapMyWalk is actually owned by Underarmor, who also own's MFP. It's a reasonable choice. I personally use a Garmin Fitness Watch.

The bottom line of these estimates is the trend in your body weight. A clue in that direction is if you are exceedingly hungry in the evening. (Although this can also be misleading.)

Best of luck figuring it out!

E7mack96

I walked 4.16 miles in an hour this morning for a caloric burn of 339 calories per the LG app.

I am going to walk the exact same here in a bit using the Map my Walk app I just downloaded and see what it says.

E7mack96

Ok, using the map my walk app produced much different data.

In 1/2 hour, I walked 2 miles and map my walk gave me 314 calories. Lg health would be 169 calories for the same walk.

The map my walk app shows a shorter distance per lap though. Per LG health, Each lap is .15 miles, but Map my walk reports as .13 miles. Hence I had to walk 2 extra laps for the same 2 miles to be counted. This lowered the mph from 4.2 or so to 4.0. For short walks, I can walk up to 5.2 mph and was walking a solid 4.2-4.4

Next I think I’ll get one of those distance wheels for doing quotes on construction jobs and measure out my course to the foot.

The pluses are I get credit for more Accurate calories on my walks with Map my walk
The minuses are the distance walked as reported by the Map my Walk app could be underreported by ~ 13% Probably less. Maybe LG health over reports by a few % too.

E7mack96

I like that Map my Walk has graphics of the walk. A nice addition of info that shows pace and elevation along with mile breakpoints and if you pay extra , it will show the data in even more ways.

heybales

Outside of the disagreement of the apps on the distance, they likely should be using the same formula that's been around for awhile and tested very accurate in studies.

https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

Gross is what the app will likely report.
Gross is what would be logged if there was an activity tracker that was going by HR-based calorie burn inflated for walking.

Net is what you'd want to log it on MFP if you have no tracker synced.


And yes - 3.2 is almost the sweet spot for best efficiency on average, may be for you exactly.

Jthanmyfitnesspal

Looking at your track: You are running (or walking) into the accuracy limitations of GPS: +/-5 meters and the accuracy degrades significantly if you are near tall buildings or under canopy.

If you walk in a more-or-less straight line, then the software can take your track points and smooth them out to a reasonable approximation of your actual track. If you walk in a tight oval, it doesn't work very well as you can see from your apparent track. The error in the diameter of a circle is 6x the error in the radius, after all.

If you want to or have to walk on a fixed track, it's better to measure the track, count the laps, and enter the distance manually. (Garmin watches have the ability to count laps automatically. It doesn't work perfectly, but it's pretty convenient.)

Now, let's talk about the fact that you have walked up to 10 miles on this short route! Is this imposed by quarantine or is it your preference?

E7mack96

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

Looking at your track: You are running (or walking) into the accuracy limitations of GPS: +/-5 meters and the accuracy degrades significantly if you are near tall buildings or under canopy.

If you walk in a more-or-less straight line, then the software can take your track points and smooth them out to a reasonable approximation of your actual track. If you walk in a tight oval, it doesn't work very well as you can see from your apparent track. The error in the diameter of a circle is 6x the error in the radius, after all.

If you want to or have to walk on a fixed track, it's better to measure the track, count the laps, and enter the distance manually. (Garmin watches have the ability to count laps automatically. It doesn't work perfectly, but it's pretty convenient.)

Now, let's talk about the fact that you have walked up to 10 miles on this short route! Is this imposed by quarantine or is it your preference?

I am boxed into this area by my employer. they wil not let me leave the property while on the clock Not my choice. I prefer to walk to be straight trips. I'm 7 miles away and other than the time constraint of having to sit here every day for 9 hours, I'd get my walking in by just walking to work and walking home. Doing so would take an additional 4 hours. You are correct on the circles statement. Initially they only let me walk inside the building and the step counts were way off.

E7mack96

Ok, I was able to take a long straight 3 mile walk and with open clear skys, no trees. Tpace was much better at 13:24 per mile, over 4.4 mph. Also the pace was pretty straight in the graph, not yo yo like the walks around our building. Also, the disparity between the 2 apps is less when walking straight. Lg monitors steps so it doesn’t vary much. The LG phone has a built in sensor for steps. The Map my walk doesn’t really use actual steps, just extrapolated steps based on distance it can measure off of gps, calculated by average strides based on the height, unless you are a premium member using the under Armour shoes with built in sensors.

ritzvin

(nevermind.. Answered)

heybales

E7mack96 wrote: »

Ok, I was able to take a long straight 3 mile walk and with open clear skys, no trees. Tpace was much better at 13:24 per mile, over 4.4 mph. Also the pace was pretty straight in the graph, not yo yo like the walks around our building. Also, the disparity between the 2 apps is less when walking straight. Lg monitors steps so it doesn’t vary much. The LG phone has a built in sensor for steps. The Map my walk doesn’t really use actual steps, just extrapolated steps based on distance it can measure off of gps, calculated by average strides based on the height, unless you are a premium member using the under Armour shoes with built in sensors.

Good to know you could nail it down for where the issue must have been.

Too bad you can't mess with stride length setting - sounds like that walk would have been the perfect one to get a good figure that could be used instead of GPS on your boxed in route.

I know ones using the Garmin sports devices that prefer a properly calibrated foot sensor for distance instead of the GPS - for instant pace changes and distance when under bridges or wooded trails.