runkeeper calorie count

Options
bethanylerew
bethanylerew Posts: 16 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
i'd classify myself as a novice when it comes to the healthy world, but i've continued on my quest for it for about 6 months now. i've been on mfp for a while, maybe 3 months, and started my journey on january 1st. down almost 25lbs!

i use mfp everyday to log calories and use runkeeper for my exercises. at work, i ususally walk about 3-3.5 miles on my lunch break while using runkeeper on the walking setting. turn it on, do my thing, get back to my office and put in my walking stats to mfp.

generally, runkeeper will log me at 325-350 calories burned but when i put the stats into mfp, they're WAY lower, 75-100 calories lower. and then on top of that, on some of the boards i've noticed that some people say that mfp inflates their calorie burn calculations!

asside from buying a hrm, does anyone really know the accuracy of runkeeper vs mfp's calorie counts?

run down of my stats, before anyone burns me
h 5'8"
w 171
28
desk job, but i get out to walk on my lunch breaks 3-4 times per week.
i've started eating A LOT better since i've started this journey

take a look at my diary and friend if you'd like! always looking for support and friends for the journey!

Replies

  • howekaren
    howekaren Posts: 159 Member
    Options
    I use Runkeeper and an HRM and I've found that the Runkeeper is slightly over what my HRM gives for calories. i.e.: runkeeper will say I've burned 325, while the HRM logs 280. Not a vast difference, but a difference. If I were to use the MFP calories, I get 227. I'd guess that if you picked somewhere in the middle, you'd be close. Keep in mind that fitness level determines caloric burn. 9 months ago, I would have had a HRM burn of 350 or more. MFP nor Runkeeper know your fitness level. That's why a HRM is so beneficial. Especially one that you can use to do a fitness check on occasion. I am quite careful to update my weight on MFP, my HRM and on Runkeeper as well as that is also a function of how many calories are burned.
  • Thomasm198
    Thomasm198 Posts: 3,189 Member
    Options
    I find Runkeeper to be very close to my HRM. I did 4 miles yesterday and there was only 60 calories difference between Runkeeper and my HRM (733 for Runkeeper vs 794 for my HRM)
  • bambi2578
    bambi2578 Posts: 155 Member
    Options
    I've found runkeeper to actually be right on target with my heart rate monitor (maybe 5-10 calories off), while MFP is like 70-150 lower.
  • lizsmith1976
    lizsmith1976 Posts: 497 Member
    Options
    Runkeeper is usually very close to my HRM, and it sounds like a very reasonable number for you if you are doing 3-3.5 miles.

    If you are down 25 lbs in 6 months then it sounds like you've got it down perfect, and I wouldn't worry :)
  • bethanylerew
    bethanylerew Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    great, i typicall log the calorie count in somewhere in between the two. it feels good to know where i stand.

    thanks so much for the imput, it is so appreciated!
  • alfmaster
    alfmaster Posts: 29
    Options
    Apps that use Speed/Distance/Weight method of calculating calories are only 65-80% accurate as it does not take your heartrate into account. Even those that do have HRM tracking may not use HRM to calculate calories (my Garmin 305 does not use HR to calculate as it is an older running watch). That being said, make sure that you are doing the following:

    1) Accurate weight data in both MFP and Runkeeper
    2) Selecting the correct pace when entering the time into MFP as this affects calorie count

    I find my watch vs. MFP are usually pretty close depending on the pace that I ran for the day.
  • sammniamii
    sammniamii Posts: 669 Member
    Options
    I hate to say it, but a HRM w/ a Fitness check would help. MFP & Endo (the app I use) always over cals my calorie burn, sometimes more than doubling. Recently my HRM has been reading off, after a battery change & a new Fitness Test, my fitness had improved. When I use it now.... I burn even less LOL.
  • MrsBach
    MrsBach Posts: 34 Member
    Options
    Runkeeper is pretty close to my HRM as well. If you're using the gps function to track your distance, it will take elevation into account, which I'm sure MFP does not.
  • mpderksen
    mpderksen Posts: 8
    Options
    It depends greatly. Today, I rode 24.25 miles in 86 minutes. I used my Garmin with a heart rate strap. If I logged it in MFP, that would give me 1584 calories! Runkeeper logged it as 1411. But Garmin calls it 835. I think that the first 2 use general ranges (biking 16-20mph is the closest choice). If I choose, bicycling light, 10-12mph, I get 791, which is far more accurate. Since going 17mph is easy/moderate for me, I should go by effort, not speed.
    However, since my Vivofit and Garmin GPS cycling/running watch automatically updates to Runkeeper, which then transfers to MFP, I would have to modify it each and every time. Not an attractive option.
    In today's case, the difference would make it look like I could eat 500 extra calories!!! But the difference between 300 and 500 (which is the same %) is only a cookie.
    80% of the purpose of these apps is to help you be aware. If you stop losing, just drop your number a little. We are all different anyway, and the calculated target for each day isn't going to be perfect for everyone. It's no substitute for body awareness.
  • stockbroker68
    stockbroker68 Posts: 2
    Options
    Runkeeepr is now giving me 1/3 of calories burned than it used to for the same distance and time walked before. They probably changed their calculations.
  • boogersnut
    boogersnut Posts: 2
    Options
    I find runkeeper, for the most part, if I am riding a bike route that is rather flat in elevation, run keeper is rather accurate. Add some major elevation and wind, runkeeper's calorie accuracy goes down...way down. Recently I rode 25 minutes on my bike at around 12mph, with an elevation gain of 700 feet in 5.6 miles.. Runkeeper awarded me only 294 calories. If I rode 5.6 miles at 12mph, on flat land, I would definitely agree with this number. But with 700 feet worth of hills....nope...definitely not.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    Use the following formula to get an idea of net calories expended walking (ie additional calories burned attributable directly to exercise)

    .30 x weight (in lbs) x distance (in miles) (source RunnersWorld.com)

    so, at 171 lbs , realistically a 3.5 mile walk for you would be about 180 cal unless you were race walking then it would actually burn more than running.....
  • LAT1963
    LAT1963 Posts: 1,375 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'8" 200 lbs and walk hills.

    For me the runkeeper results seem to track my weight loss rate well, so they seem pretty accurate.

    Somewhere in runkeeper is a place to record your weight and I think maybe your age. Make sure that those fields are up to date to get more accurate estimates. (I have a withings scale linked to mfp and runkeeper so my weight updates automatically in both companion apps).

    PS: You may have to go to the runkeeper website rather than the phone app to enter that data though, I don't recall.

Categories