Yet another inaccurate app!

David1406
David1406 Posts: 63
in Fitness and Exercise
I've tried Runtastic and now Runkeeper, but they both work on the same basis as far as calories are concerned. They have a pre-programmed number of calories burned per km for walking, for jogging etc etc, and it matters not at what pace one is carrying out the exercise. I walk a lot..most of the time at a fast pace of 9.5 or 10.5 mins per km, but sometimes at a slower pace of, say, 12 mins per km. Both these apps give exactly the same burn irrespective of the pace, which is clearly ridiculous.
Does anyone know of an app which records calories burned more accurately, based on the degree of effort put into the given exercise?
At the moment I'm calculating manually by using the calories shown for jogging (7.5mins per km) and walking (15.5 mins per km) and calculating the figures for anything in between.

Replies

  • Witchdoctor58
    Witchdoctor58 Posts: 226 Member
    If you want close to accurate, you need a heart rate monitor. You can buy one inexpensively.
  • JenMc14
    JenMc14 Posts: 2,389 Member
    It's actually probably not too far off with that method. The same distance will get you roughly the same calories burned, but clearly you're burning more calories per minute going faster than slower, if that makes sense. A general rule of thumb is that you burn 100 calories per mile (I believe this is based on a person who weighs around 160 pounds). Obviously it's less if you're lighter and more if you're heavier. Obviously, there are a lot of variables, and a HRM would be your best bet for more accuracy.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    I've tried Runtastic and now Runkeeper, but they both work on the same basis as far as calories are concerned. They have a pre-programmed number of calories burned per km for walking, for jogging etc etc, and it matters not at what pace one is carrying out the exercise. I walk a lot..most of the time at a fast pace of 9.5 or 10.5 mins per km, but sometimes at a slower pace of, say, 12 mins per km. Both these apps give exactly the same burn irrespective of the pace, which is clearly ridiculous.
    Does anyone know of an app which records calories burned more accurately, based on the degree of effort put into the given exercise?
    At the moment I'm calculating manually by using the calories shown for jogging (7.5mins per km) and walking (15.5 mins per km) and calculating the figures for anything in between.

    Actually, it's not as ridiculous as you might think. You burn roughly 100 calories per mile, give or take, whether you are walking or running that mile. The difference being that you obviously complete the task faster if you're running...and you're also improving your aerobic endurance to a much more substantial degree.

    There is no perfect estimate...it's all an estimate...but 100 calories give or take per mile, give or take, is pretty solid and well founded.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member

    Actually, it's not as ridiculous as you might think. You burn roughly 100 calories per mile, give or take, whether you are walking or running that mile. The difference being that you obviously complete the task faster if you're running...and you're also improving your aerobic endurance to a much more substantial degree.

    There is no perfect estimate...it's all an estimate...but 100 calories give or take per mile, give or take, is pretty solid and well founded.


    :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: No no no no no o no......running burns roughly 25% more calories per mile than walking does (unless you are race walking then walking - due to its mechanical inefficiency - actually burns more) To sanity check you caloric expenditure:

    .57 x your body weight in pounds x distance in miles (walking)

    .72 x your body weight in pounds x distance in miles (running)

    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673
  • David1406
    David1406 Posts: 63
    Thanks for all your comments...really appreciate them. I think a heart monitor is the way to go. But it really illustrates why I totally ignore 'exercise calories'...what ever they may be... when calculating my daily food intake. Whatever they are, I just treat them as a bonus!
  • KY2022runner
    KY2022runner Posts: 72 Member
    with runtastic i usually half the amout of calories. I cant stand having it synch with crazy high calories and mees up my intake of food for the day. I find it hard to believe that in running 3.25 miles i burned almost 800 calories.
  • kimmymayhall
    kimmymayhall Posts: 419 Member

    Actually, it's not as ridiculous as you might think. You burn roughly 100 calories per mile, give or take, whether you are walking or running that mile. The difference being that you obviously complete the task faster if you're running...and you're also improving your aerobic endurance to a much more substantial degree.

    There is no perfect estimate...it's all an estimate...but 100 calories give or take per mile, give or take, is pretty solid and well founded.


    :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: No no no no no o no......running burns roughly 25% more calories per mile than walking does (unless you are race walking then walking - due to its mechanical inefficiency - actually burns more) To sanity check you caloric expenditure:

    .57 x your body weight in pounds x distance in miles (walking)

    .72 x your body weight in pounds x distance in miles (running)

    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673

    Yes, running does burn more calories per mile than walking. Those numbers include BMR calories.
    Approximate exercise only calories per mile are
    walking calories = .30 x your body weight in pounds
    running calories = .63 x your body weight in pounds

    It's not exact but I do I quick calculation using that to make sure my estimated calorie burn is in the right ballpark. I use TDEE so not terribly worried about exact calories.
    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/how-many-calories-are-you-really-burning?page=single
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member

    Actually, it's not as ridiculous as you might think. You burn roughly 100 calories per mile, give or take, whether you are walking or running that mile. The difference being that you obviously complete the task faster if you're running...and you're also improving your aerobic endurance to a much more substantial degree.

    There is no perfect estimate...it's all an estimate...but 100 calories give or take per mile, give or take, is pretty solid and well founded.




    :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: No no no no no o no......running burns roughly 25% more calories per mile than walking does (unless you are race walking then walking - due to its mechanical inefficiency - actually burns more) To sanity check you caloric expenditure:

    .57 x your body weight in pounds x distance in miles (walking)

    .72 x your body weight in pounds x distance in miles (running)

    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673

    Ok...I just did that formula...I get around 417 walking and 527 running 4 miles (just 'cuz I happened to walk 4 miles today). I wouldn't say there is a dramatic difference there...an add'l 110 calories is fairly negligible in my book and nothing to get all worked up about....which is why I said "give or take." If I do it for a single mile...104.31 and 131.76...really...it sounds like a lot when you say 25% more, but it's really not that many more calories unless you're putting in substantial mileage.

    Also, one of the many reasons I just use the TDEE method. People try to get all exact in their estimates...completely forgetting that it's an estimate...and there's always going to be a margin of error.
  • oswaldbowser
    oswaldbowser Posts: 164 Member
    If you want to track your calories within 5% accuracy you will need http://www.kiperformance.co.uk/ or if you live in the U.S.A http://www.bodybugg.com/get_bugged.php

    Forget heart monitors to measure calories used they can be and are often 25-45% out!
  • froeschli
    froeschli Posts: 1,292 Member
    runkeeper does give me different calorie burns for different speeds - but it has to be significantly different, as in easy run vs mad dogs are chasing me pace.
    but then, i log 100 calories for 10 minutes running, which is about what my hrm gave me, i wear it once in a while to check whether i am still in the ballpark, but i quit obsessing over accuracy. can't complain about the inaccuracy of an app, if i don't bother to log my food any more accurately...
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member

    Ok...I just did that formula...I get around 417 walking and 527 running 4 miles (just 'cuz I happened to walk 4 miles today). I wouldn't say there is a dramatic difference there...an add'l 110 calories is fairly negligible in my book and nothing to get all worked up about....which is why I said "give or take." If I do it for a single mile...104.31 and 131.76...really...it sounds like a lot when you say 25% more, but it's really not that many more calories unless you're putting in substantial mileage.

    Also, one of the many reasons I just use the TDEE method. People try to get all exact in their estimates...completely forgetting that it's an estimate...and there's always going to be a margin of error.

    LOL that's how the 100 cal snack pack makers lull people, 100 cal per day over the course of a year is 10lbs of fat (and that doesn't take into account the improved cardiovascular health)
  • NicolaMapp
    NicolaMapp Posts: 27 Member

    Actually, it's not as ridiculous as you might think. You burn roughly 100 calories per mile, give or take, whether you are walking or running that mile. The difference being that you obviously complete the task faster if you're running...and you're also improving your aerobic endurance to a much more substantial degree.

    There is no perfect estimate...it's all an estimate...but 100 calories give or take per mile, give or take, is pretty solid and well founded.


    I just used to this recalculate my run on Runkeeper this morning, and near spot on!


    :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: No no no no no o no......running burns roughly 25% more calories per mile than walking does (unless you are race walking then walking - due to its mechanical inefficiency - actually burns more) To sanity check you caloric expenditure:

    .57 x your body weight in pounds x distance in miles (walking)

    .72 x your body weight in pounds x distance in miles (running)

    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673
  • jetlag
    jetlag Posts: 800 Member

    Actually, it's not as ridiculous as you might think. You burn roughly 100 calories per mile, give or take, whether you are walking or running that mile. The difference being that you obviously complete the task faster if you're running...and you're also improving your aerobic endurance to a much more substantial degree.

    There is no perfect estimate...it's all an estimate...but 100 calories give or take per mile, give or take, is pretty solid and well founded.


    :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: No no no no no o no......running burns roughly 25% more calories per mile than walking does (unless you are race walking then walking - due to its mechanical inefficiency - actually burns more) To sanity check you caloric expenditure:

    .57 x your body weight in pounds x distance in miles (walking)

    .72 x your body weight in pounds x distance in miles (running)

    http://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446673

    Yes, that's right. It's an urban myth that calories are consumed based on distance travelled alone. Pace really does make a difference.

Categories