Which one should I trust more - MFP or MapMyRun?

thefaultinourstars

I used Mapmyrun for the first time today to see how and IF it works..

At the end of my run it showed these results;
distance -4,67 miles
time - 45:06 min
average pace - 9:38 min/mile
average speed - 6,22 mph
calories burned - 829

MFP, however, tells me that I've burned 480 cals according to this data (--> I logged 10 min/mile, 6 mph)

I don't know which of these two I should trust.. surely, it would be nicer to see that I've burned 829 cals, but I think I should go with MFP on this one.. I'm interested in what others think about this, though?

dillydally123

i use mapmyrun all the time for running and cycling and its normally pretty close to the MFP estimate. (withing 50ish calories or so, max difference of 100). was it an extremely hilly run or something?

thefaultinourstars

I ran around our town.. I went uphill only once so that shouldn't be the reason..

3dogsrunning

^^. Agreed. I have always found the two pretty close.
I'd go with the lower one. My understanding is average burn is about 100 calories per mile (not exactly accurate but when you are looking at a difference between 480 and 800 and the average would be 500 I'm more inclined to believe the 480 is closer. )

Check out this runner's world article. It also gives formula at the end to help estimate.

http://m.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

ChildrenCryinNCoffee

Check out the app Cardio Trainer---I use it and love it. It's accurate, has a GPS mode that tells you the time, elevation, & MPH per flagged mile you run, all on a map. Also, their Workout History is MUCH better than MapMyRun or RunKeepers. Also, it's FREE! :0)

Christine1110

If your eating back your calories...I onlly eat back half. That way I knew I was safe.

RobynLB

I don't go off any calorie calculators. Know your own body. I know from experience that I burn about 100 cals per 10 minutes at an easy jog. If my workout was harder... I give myself a little more... if it was easier, a little less. If your choice is between two calculators, go with the lower number.

thefaultinourstars

Check out the app Cardio Trainer---I use it and love it. It's accurate, has a GPS mode that tells you the time, elevation, & MPH per flagged mile you run, all on a map. Also, their Workout History is MUCH better than MapMyRun or RunKeepers. Also, it's FREE! :0)

Thanks, I'll try it out next time I go running

3dogsrunning

Is all your info in mapmyrun accurate? Height? Weight? Etc. double check that.

HMVOL7409

I don't go off any calorie calculators. Know your own body. I know from experience that I burn about 100 cals per 10 minutes at an easy jog. If my workout was harder... I give myself a little more... if it was easier, a little less. If your choice is between two calculators, go with the lower number.

This and no app is going to be 100% accurate because it is not a HRM. If you want a more precise total invest in one.

clover5

I've never used any of the external calorie counters. But I am in my goal weight range using nothing but MFP and my best honest entry of exercise and food.

thefaultinourstars

Is all your info in mapmyrun accurate? Height? Weight? Etc. double check that.

Yeah it is, I went to check if that was the problem but it's accurate, so idk..

thefaultinourstars

I'm just gonna go with MFP then, thanks for all your help

Katbody10

I used Mapmyrun for the first time today to see how and IF it works..

At the end of my run it showed these results;
distance -4,67 miles
time - 45:06 min
average pace - 9:38 min/mile
average speed - 6,22 mph
calories burned - 829

MFP, however, tells me that I've burned 480 cals according to this data (--> I logged 10 min/mile, 6 mph)

I don't know which of these two I should trust.. surely, it would be nicer to see that I've burned 829 cals, but I think I should go with MFP on this one.. I'm interested in what others think about this, though?

Wow .. Lucky you! I use MapMyWalk .. and it's always waaay lower than MFP. So I use MapMyWalk because it calculates my weight along with inclines that I'm actually walking. I walk nearly 5 miles every morning .. and most of it is uphill (not easy inclines) .. and it consistently gives me less (by nearly half) of what MFP tells me.

I'd say MapMyWalk (run/ride - whichever you use) it more accurate since it uses GPS and known incline / terrain factors whereas MFP is just a flat catch all rate .. :drinker:

Edit: I walk 5 miles in the mornings .. takes me around an hour and 15-20 minutes. and I burn around 257-268 calories in that time .. so if you're running it .. I believe it!

zen82

Was it a very hilly run? MFP doesn't account for hills - think that rate is as if running on more or less flat?

thefaultinourstars

Was it a very hilly run? MFP doesn't account for hills - think that rate is as if running on more or less flat?

Nope, 2 times downhill and 2 times uphill (all 4 very short), other than that it was all pretty much flat surface

thefaultinourstars

I used Mapmyrun for the first time today to see how and IF it works..

At the end of my run it showed these results;
distance -4,67 miles
time - 45:06 min
average pace - 9:38 min/mile
average speed - 6,22 mph
calories burned - 829

MFP, however, tells me that I've burned 480 cals according to this data (--> I logged 10 min/mile, 6 mph)

I don't know which of these two I should trust.. surely, it would be nicer to see that I've burned 829 cals, but I think I should go with MFP on this one.. I'm interested in what others think about this, though?

Wow .. Lucky you! I use MapMyWalk .. and it's always waaay lower than MFP. So I use MapMyWalk because it calculates my weight along with inclines that I'm actually walking. I walk nearly 5 miles every morning .. and most of it is uphill (not easy inclines) .. and it consistently gives me less (by nearly half) of what MFP tells me.

I'd say MapMyWalk (run/ride - whichever you use) it more accurate since it uses GPS and known incline / terrain factors whereas MFP is just a flat catch all rate .. :drinker:

Edit: I walk 5 miles in the mornings .. takes me around an hour and 15-20 minutes. and I burn around 257-268 calories in that time .. so if you're running it .. I believe it!

I'll try that one out, too, thanks

3dogsrunning

I used Mapmyrun for the first time today to see how and IF it works..

At the end of my run it showed these results;
distance -4,67 miles
time - 45:06 min
average pace - 9:38 min/mile
average speed - 6,22 mph
calories burned - 829

MFP, however, tells me that I've burned 480 cals according to this data (--> I logged 10 min/mile, 6 mph)

I don't know which of these two I should trust.. surely, it would be nicer to see that I've burned 829 cals, but I think I should go with MFP on this one.. I'm interested in what others think about this, though?

Wow .. Lucky you! I use MapMyWalk .. and it's always waaay lower than MFP. So I use MapMyWalk because it calculates my weight along with inclines that I'm actually walking. I walk nearly 5 miles every morning .. and most of it is uphill (not easy inclines) .. and it consistently gives me less (by nearly half) of what MFP tells me.

I'd say MapMyWalk (run/ride - whichever you use) it more accurate since it uses GPS and known incline / terrain factors whereas MFP is just a flat catch all rate .. :drinker:

Edit: I walk 5 miles in the mornings .. takes me around an hour and 15-20 minutes. and I burn around 257-268 calories in that time .. so if you're running it .. I believe it!

The article I posted breaks down the difference between walking and running for calorie burning. It also says running burns 50% more calories than walking. So if that is true, your numbers would agree with the 480 estimate.

Katbody10

The article I posted breaks down the difference between walking and running for calorie burning. It also says running burns 50% more calories than walking. So if that is true, your numbers would agree with the 480 estimate.

Weight and age make a big difference too :happy: - as well as how fit you are in general. I think the best gadget would be a HRM and/or a fitbit/bodymedia/bodybugg thingy .. MFP tends to be generous with their values .. maybe geared towards those needing weight loss rather than maintenance.

I'm 46, 5'4 and weigh 112 lbs. It doesn't take a lot of effort to propel this little machine around :laugh: If I weighed 20 lbs more and over .. I'm sure I would probably expend more energy moving my weight around. My BMR is actually 1135 .. (if I were to just exist and not move out of bed .. maybe not even roll over ..LOL)

Everyone is different, so we all probably have some adjustments to consider with calorie intake and exercise. MFP tells me I'm burning around 400 calories on my 5 mile walk. I'm pretty darn sure I'm not burning that many - thankfully I can adjust it here on MFP .. and I opt for whatever gives me the least calories in exercise .. and the most calorie count in foods (I even add calories) to keep it more real in my mind

3dogsrunning

The article I posted breaks down the difference between walking and running for calorie burning. It also says running burns 50% more calories than walking. So if that is true, your numbers would agree with the 480 estimate.

Weight and age make a big difference too :happy: - as well as how fit you are in general. I think the best gadget would be a HRM and/or a fitbit/bodymedia/bodybugg thingy .. MFP tends to be generous with their values .. maybe geared towards those needing weight loss rather than maintenance.

I'm 46, 5'4 and weigh 112 lbs. It doesn't take a lot of effort to propel this little machine around :laugh: If I weighed 20 lbs more and over .. I'm sure I would probably expend more energy moving my weight around. My BMR is actually 1135 .. (if I were to just exist and not move out of bed .. maybe not even roll over ..LOL)

Everyone is different, so we all probably have some adjustments to consider with calorie intake and exercise. MFP tells me I'm burning around 400 calories on my 5 mile walk. I'm pretty darn sure I'm not burning that many - thankfully I can adjust it here on MFP .. and I opt for whatever gives me the least calories in exercise .. and the most calorie count in foods (I even add calories) to keep it more real in my mind

Yes weight plays a huge role. I was speaking in estimates. The article i posted actually talked about weight playing a role. OP would have to weight a lot more to burn 800 cals vs 480.

Fitness actually doesn't play a role. The old example of lance Armstrong might not be the best anymore but if Chrissie Wellington (3x world ironman champion) and I were the same weight and were to run the same route at the same pace, we would burn the same amount of calories.

At the end of the day, it's all estimates, even with HRMs. I'm just trying to show the Op that the 480, while it may not be exact, is probably a lot more reliable than the 800+.

Azdak

At the speed you were running, the 480 number works out to a weight of 61 kg. If you are near that weight, then that is the most accurate number.