anyone use Endomondo for tracking exercise?

Options
2»

Replies

  • SanyamKaushik
    SanyamKaushik Posts: 215 Member
    Options
    What I have read, formulas for calculating walking and running calories are fairly accurate (these are based on weight and distance travelled) I have tried heart rate monitor but they give me very high calorie burnt figures and I really cant believe it. I use Endomondo and my belief is that the reading of Endomondo or MFP are fairly accurate. Endomondo is helpful in calculating total distance walked and you have reasonable good figures to enter into MFP.
  • michaelthorsonjr
    michaelthorsonjr Posts: 80
    Options
    Is MFP estimate high or low do you think?

    According to my HRM, it's high.

    By how much?
  • EoinMag
    EoinMag Posts: 25 Member
    Options
    Is MFP estimate high or low do you think?

    According to my HRM, it's high.

    By how much?

    I'll qualify this for you after this evenings workout if I remember.
  • EoinMag
    EoinMag Posts: 25 Member
    Options
    Ok I've done my first thirty minutes on the X-trainer

    HRM says 30mins = 347 kcal
    MFP says 30mins =408kcal

    Interestingly the Elliptical display is showing 402, so effectively the same as MFP.

    It's a Reebok Z9 machine so an alright home machine.
  • cherbapp
    cherbapp Posts: 322
    Options
    I've been using endomondo for a while now and just came on here looking for an answer to my question...if endomondo is more accurate than MFP? Endomondo tracks elevation, which can make a huge difference in burn..

    Anyway when I biked today in hilly terrain, endomondo said I burned 20% more calories than MfP.

    Walking is slightly higher as well....so I was just curious if endomondo is indeed calculating the effort it takes to go up and down a few hundred feet.

    From reading the responses earlier about MFP estimating a higher burn, I'm going with yes....endomondo can calculate terrain into the mix. :)
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    Endopmondo for biking is ridiculously inaccurate. It gives me a burn about 70% higher than my HRM and I think that is about 20 to 30% high.
  • chubba10000
    chubba10000 Posts: 11
    Options
    I've been using it for a while, and endomondo consistently gives me higher calorie burn numbers, too. At this point I basically use it for the time/distance calculation but go with what MFP says for the calories. Since I'm trying to lose weight rather than replace those calories for training purposes, I think it's preferable to stick with the more conservative numbers.

    Regarding the altitude, I seriously doubt that's what's making the difference. I live in Chicago, which is mostly glacier-scraped prairie except for a few ridges and bluffs and railroad viaducts here and there, rarely more than a hundred or so feet of elevation change in the course of anything I do. Walking or biking, I usually get a 30-60% higher calorie number with endomondo.
  • jonchew
    jonchew Posts: 239 Member
    Options
    Is MFP estimate high or low do you think?

    According to my HRM, it's high.

    By how much?
    Interesting - I have Endomondo Pro/Zephyr HRM, and it tends to read much higher than MFP. I just got back from a walk, Endomondo calculated 357kcal, whereas MFP calculates it to be 285kcal. Accoeding to Endomondo, I walked an average of 4.16 mph, so I used MFP calculations for walking at 4.0 mph - but the difference shouldn't be that much.

    I think what's happening is, Endomondo is taking the terrain (and my heartrate) into account (I live in a hilly area).

    I also found out that the GPS in my phone is quite terrible, I use a Holux Bluetooth GPS receiver that I've had knocking-about, and get great results now. Anyone else have real problems with their phone GPS?
  • rsan
    rsan Posts: 1
    Options
    Maybe "transport" is for flat roads and "sport" is for mountain biking or trail riding, not sure.

Categories