Calories burned on MFP are less than Runtastic

bringingsexyback2007

When I log exercise in MFP it calculates that I burned less than half the calories that Runtastic says I burned. Which one should I go by? Runtastic tracks my speed and distance.

bringingsexyback2007

Bump.

dbmata

Use a heart rate monitor. you'll find the numbers here are much higher than on a quality HRM.

andrewglipman

I found the guides on the web gave me about 125 calories per mile.
Once I got my garmin with HRM is seems to give me way less.
So my 14 mile trail run used to be about 1600 cals but now is about 1350.
A 9 mile tempo run on Tuesday was 863.

arrseegee

I think Runtastic can calculate more accurately than MFP because it looks at more things, e.g. speed, distance, duration, body weight. It's still an estimate though, and as dbmata said using a HRM will be much more accurate.

ronellevan

Using something that goes with you - runtastic, HRM - will always be more accurate.

eldamiano

Runtastic. MFP doesnt take into account elevation of your run and other such variables. More like makes an educated guess. If you play football for 45 minutes, MFP will not know how much of this time you are stationary, sprinting, jogging, etc, where as a GPS would at least know exactly how far you have travelled.

Same logic applies for running.

mccindy72

Runtastic. MFP doesnt take into account elevation of your run and other such variables. More like makes an educated guess. If you play football for 45 minutes, MFP will not know how much of this time you are stationary, sprinting, jogging, etc, where as a GPS would at least know exactly how far you have travelled.

Same logic applies for running.

which is great, except using distance, elevation, etc is still an educated guess. Using a HRM is much more accurate, as the work you are doing during the run and how your body is using oxygen is a more reliable way to calculate calories burned.

eldamiano

Runtastic. MFP doesnt take into account elevation of your run and other such variables. More like makes an educated guess. If you play football for 45 minutes, MFP will not know how much of this time you are stationary, sprinting, jogging, etc, where as a GPS would at least know exactly how far you have travelled.

Same logic applies for running.

which is great, except using distance, elevation, etc is still an educated guess. Using a HRM is much more accurate, as the work you are doing during the run and how your body is using oxygen is a more reliable way to calculate calories burned.

'
That's great, but the question was 'MFP or Runtastic - which is more accurate?'

mccindy72

Runtastic. MFP doesnt take into account elevation of your run and other such variables. More like makes an educated guess. If you play football for 45 minutes, MFP will not know how much of this time you are stationary, sprinting, jogging, etc, where as a GPS would at least know exactly how far you have travelled.

Same logic applies for running.

which is great, except using distance, elevation, etc is still an educated guess. Using a HRM is much more accurate, as the work you are doing during the run and how your body is using oxygen is a more reliable way to calculate calories burned.

'
That's great, but the question was 'MFP or Runtastic - which is more accurate?'

then the answer is neither.

eldamiano

Runtastic. MFP doesnt take into account elevation of your run and other such variables. More like makes an educated guess. If you play football for 45 minutes, MFP will not know how much of this time you are stationary, sprinting, jogging, etc, where as a GPS would at least know exactly how far you have travelled.

Same logic applies for running.

which is great, except using distance, elevation, etc is still an educated guess. Using a HRM is much more accurate, as the work you are doing during the run and how your body is using oxygen is a more reliable way to calculate calories burned.

'
That's great, but the question was 'MFP or Runtastic - which is more accurate?'

then the answer is neither.

Wrong (blimey, you are a barrel of laughs)

omma_to_3

I use an HRM. Compared to MFP or Runkeeper, I would say, for me, they're both a bit overstated. RunKeeper is pretty close though. I would say use Runtastic and maybe take 5% to 10% off the number to be safe.