400 or 1800 - MFP vs MapMyRide calories gap

Options
pawprint_net
pawprint_net Posts: 54
in Fitness and Exercise
I do a lot of biking - it's basically my main cardio - I have been using MapMyRide for a few years now and have it linked to MFP - I just noticed though that the calories burned showing in the app vs what is showing in MFP are not just a little different they are massively different.

For the 13Km ride at about 21Kph average I just got home from MFP shows 432 Calories burned and MMR shows 1836

Considering I live somewhat in the mountains I have always felt MFP might be too low because it looses all the hill climbs (about 170m) - but this count from MMR seems far far too much.

I'm wondering if anyone else has experience with these sorts of gaps and how you handle it? (yes I know a HRM would be best but I don't have the $$ for that at the moment)

Replies

  • sc003ro
    sc003ro Posts: 227 Member
    Options
    i would google it.there are a few sites that have calorie calculators...find out at your age and wieght what that ride burns and compare it....or just use that.....
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    How long was your ride? Maybe 40 minutes based on the distance and speed? I think MFP is far, far closer than MMR. I've found most cycling estimates to be exaggerated compared to my HRM. There are lots of options for coasting while cycling so the amount of time spent actually putting forth effort can be vastly different for two people riding the same route. Given the potential for hills where you are, if you feel you worked harder than what MFP shows, then adjust upwards a bit. But I agree the the MMR numbers are crazy high. Really, true mountain biking (off-road) may burn more than running, but road biking likely wouldn't. With running, the best you can typically get is 10 calories per minute.
  • pawprint_net
    pawprint_net Posts: 54
    Options
    Tried about 5 different ones online - got 5 different numbers - all below the MMR one and most above the MFP one (gaaaa!)
  • pawprint_net
    pawprint_net Posts: 54
    Options
    It's a 34 min ride - combining forest trails and road. I figured that MMR number must be wildly off. One of these days I really need to get me a HRM.

    Preferring to err on the conservative side I'll just go with what MFP says - when I averaged out all the online calculator numbers - it comes in around 550.
  • weird_me2
    weird_me2 Posts: 716 Member
    Options
    MFP is probably too low because while you are maintaining that set speed, your intensity and effort on hills and big climbs is higher than it would be on a flat surface.

    MMR is probably wrong because the GPS jumped around. I have this happen when I walk near my work - I magically jump over/through 10 story buildings while I'm walking down around here. You could try the MMR website and map the same route you took and log it as a workout - you can enter your time on there too. As long as your stats are right, it will probably give you a more accurate calorie count than the app did. My hour long walk/run yesterday was off by about 15% from the app to the website mapping the exact same route.
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Options
    It's a 34 min ride - combining forest trails and road. I figured that MMR number must be wildly off. One of these days I really need to get me a HRM.

    Preferring to err on the conservative side I'll just go with what MFP says - when I averaged out all the online calculator numbers - it comes in around 550.

    Probably a good approach. My GPS tools are always off for my rides too, but nowhere near by that much. Stick with MFP for a few weeks and if you're losing more than you'd like, go ahead of up the calorie burn by maybe 25%.

Categories