Trackers for calories burn: RunKeeper versus Nike+

ZBuffBod

Thought for today:

I've been using RunKeeper to track calories burned while walking. I also use Nike+ as a backup tracker...started when RunKeeper failed to record properly a few times. :-(

I have found that RunKeeper consistently records a 15% higher caloric burn than Nike+. Sooooo! I am going to trust Nike+ and use the lower value...well, because I trust the Nike name when it comes to fitness "stuff" and I also don't want to over estimate what I am burning.

Has anyone used these trackers? What's been your experience? What do you think of my approach?

version45

I've used both RunKeeper and Nike+, but ended up consistently using MapMyRun. Most of these trackers record a number of GPS points over a specific period of time (say 10 points per minute). It then averages these points to get your rate/speed/pace. This pace is then factored with your height and weight and (usually) a self-declared activity level (sedentary, moderately active, athlete) to come up with your total calories burned. Bottom-line is that there is a lot of estimating and averaging happening within this number, so there is definitely room for error. That being said, all three of these apps are absolutely awesome for tracking your exercise. I just found MapMyRun consistently easy to use and the most accurate for calculating pace and distance ran. If you choose any of the three, and stay disciplined about consistently using it, I don't think you'll go wrong. Have fun!

ZBuffBod

Thank you. I will check out MapMyRun also.

TheVevina

I've also found that RunKeeper overestimates burns. I started using Runtastic, and I find that the burns are about the same as those of MPF for me, but then again, MPF also has a record for overestimating (still lower than RunKeeper though). Runtastic doesn't have interval training though.