MFP or Endomondo; which do I trust?

mommyshortlegs
mommyshortlegs Posts: 402 Member
edited December 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
The Toddler and I just completed a 46m, 42s stroll of 2.56 mi. with an average speed of 3.3 mph. Endomondo (an exercise tracking app, for the uninitiated) indicates I burned 310 kcal. Plugging the activity and time into MFP, it indicates I've burned 177 cal. Assuming kcal and cal are one in the same (one online source says yes, the other no), which numbers do I trust, MFP's calorie burn or Endomondo's?

Replies

  • katamus
    katamus Posts: 2,363 Member
    It appeared to me that MFP does calculations based on your height and weight so I imagine that it's more accurate. HOWEVER, I found both to be wildly inaccurate when I bought an HRM. If you want to be accurate, the best way to go is the HRM.
  • jc1229
    jc1229 Posts: 220 Member
    I've used Endomondo and my hrm for walking and they have been pretty close, within 10 calories of each other.
  • jessicae1aine
    jessicae1aine Posts: 885
    I agree a HRM is best.

    But, in comparing past calculations, as for walking Endomondo has consistently been closer than MFP to what my HRM says.
  • BetterCrazyThanLazy
    BetterCrazyThanLazy Posts: 336
    Nothing will be as accurate as a HRM, even the HRM is iffy sometimes but none of the gadgets know your fitness level.

    I burn only 450calories during my 6 mile run (just under 1 hour).
  • CyberEd312
    CyberEd312 Posts: 3,536 Member
    I've used Endomondo and my hrm for walking and they have been pretty close, within 10 calories of each other.

    Agreed! I wear a Polar Ft60 hrm and it to is close to Endomondo when I am walking....
  • JennyLisT
    JennyLisT Posts: 402 Member
    Endomondo (an exercise tracking app, for the uninitiated) indicates I burned 310 kcal.

    How much now?
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Probably endomondo is more correct, as long as your stats are all entered correctly. It takes in to account elevation changes, whereas MFP does not. Make sure endomondo is set to "walking" rather than the default "running"

    My HRM and endomondo are usually very close.

    ETA: The MFP numbers based on what you gave would give you 69 cal/mile. Unless you are extremely petite, I don't see that being reasonable. Endomondo works out to 121 cals/mile, which sounds a lot more correct to me.
  • ValerieMartini2Olives
    ValerieMartini2Olives Posts: 3,024 Member
    Take the average of the two and subtract 20%. That will give you a fairly realistic figure.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    When I run or bike, Endomondo gives me double what me HRM gives me. I don't trust it at all! You HRM, while not perfect, is the closer estimate IMHO.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    So I guess I need to pay closer attention. I don't trust either. I'd get an HRM. And I wouldn't trust that completely!! LOL
  • jessicae1aine
    jessicae1aine Posts: 885
    I would caution against using Endomondo's numbers for biking. :P My HRM showed 412 cal burned this morning, Endomondo said 2444kcal!
  • BeautifulBrownBbyDoll
    BeautifulBrownBbyDoll Posts: 33 Member
    I have used Endomondo and Runkeeper and i would say that both of them are better calculations than MFP.
  • TXtstorm
    TXtstorm Posts: 163 Member
    I just got a HRM too, because I didn't trust some of what I was seeing in MFP. Walking seems spot on. MFP biking calories are too high. Sad.

    FYI, what we commonly call "calories" in the US are actually "kilocalories" which is abbreviated kcal. So for your purposes, cal and kcal are the same unit of measurement.
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    I would caution against using Endomondo's numbers for biking. :P My HRM showed 412 cal burned this morning, Endomondo said 2444kcal!

    Totally agree about biking. WAY off. Not even worth using for calories.
  • ksemien
    ksemien Posts: 133 Member
    Agreeing w/ most here. I use a HRM and a BMR monitor and they are closest for me, not fail proof, but close. MFP highly overestimates my calorie burn. Endomondo I use for GPS, timing, and basically everything else, but ignore it's calorie burn calculations. Good Luck!
  • emtjmac
    emtjmac Posts: 1,320 Member
    I enjoy the pleasures!
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    I just got a HRM too, because I didn't trust some of what I was seeing in MFP. Walking seems spot on. MFP biking calories are too high. Sad.

    FYI, what we commonly call "calories" in the US are actually "kilocalories" which is abbreviated kcal. So for your purposes, cal and kcal are the same unit of measurement.
    You're going to pull your hair out when you see some of the things you will see on the boards. :tongue:
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    I just got a HRM too, because I didn't trust some of what I was seeing in MFP. Walking seems spot on. MFP biking calories are too high. Sad.

    FYI, what we commonly call "calories" in the US are actually "kilocalories" which is abbreviated kcal. So for your purposes, cal and kcal are the same unit of measurement.
    You're going to pull your hair out when you see some of the things you will see on the boards. :tongue:
    Lolz!! Ain't it the truth!!
  • josyjozy
    josyjozy Posts: 117 Member
    you can put your height and weight into endomondo too. I go with endomondo's readings when I use it. It takes in your rate, your average rate and terrain,
  • scrapfrfun
    scrapfrfun Posts: 47
    I have worn an HRM and had Endomondo running at the same time and they ended up being pretty close to each other. I ended Endomondo as soon as I was done walking and I left my HRM running until my heart rate was down, I was actually surprised that when I stopped the HRM they were so close together. So now, if I am out for a walk I usually just use Endomondo. But if I am doing a cardio class I use my HRM......
This discussion has been closed.

Categories