Calories burned on MFP are less than Runtastic

bringingsexyback2007
bringingsexyback2007 Posts: 79 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
When I log exercise in MFP it calculates that I burned less than half the calories that Runtastic says I burned. Which one should I go by? Runtastic tracks my speed and distance.

Replies

  • bringingsexyback2007
    bringingsexyback2007 Posts: 79 Member
    Bump.
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    Use a heart rate monitor. you'll find the numbers here are much higher than on a quality HRM.
  • andrewglipman
    andrewglipman Posts: 3
    I found the guides on the web gave me about 125 calories per mile.
    Once I got my garmin with HRM is seems to give me way less.
    So my 14 mile trail run used to be about 1600 cals but now is about 1350.
    A 9 mile tempo run on Tuesday was 863.
  • arrseegee
    arrseegee Posts: 575 Member
    I think Runtastic can calculate more accurately than MFP because it looks at more things, e.g. speed, distance, duration, body weight. It's still an estimate though, and as dbmata said using a HRM will be much more accurate.
  • ronellevan
    ronellevan Posts: 44
    Using something that goes with you - runtastic, HRM - will always be more accurate.
  • eldamiano
    eldamiano Posts: 2,667 Member
    Runtastic. MFP doesnt take into account elevation of your run and other such variables. More like makes an educated guess. If you play football for 45 minutes, MFP will not know how much of this time you are stationary, sprinting, jogging, etc, where as a GPS would at least know exactly how far you have travelled.

    Same logic applies for running.
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    Runtastic. MFP doesnt take into account elevation of your run and other such variables. More like makes an educated guess. If you play football for 45 minutes, MFP will not know how much of this time you are stationary, sprinting, jogging, etc, where as a GPS would at least know exactly how far you have travelled.

    Same logic applies for running.


    which is great, except using distance, elevation, etc is still an educated guess. Using a HRM is much more accurate, as the work you are doing during the run and how your body is using oxygen is a more reliable way to calculate calories burned.
  • eldamiano
    eldamiano Posts: 2,667 Member
    Runtastic. MFP doesnt take into account elevation of your run and other such variables. More like makes an educated guess. If you play football for 45 minutes, MFP will not know how much of this time you are stationary, sprinting, jogging, etc, where as a GPS would at least know exactly how far you have travelled.

    Same logic applies for running.


    which is great, except using distance, elevation, etc is still an educated guess. Using a HRM is much more accurate, as the work you are doing during the run and how your body is using oxygen is a more reliable way to calculate calories burned.
    '
    That's great, but the question was 'MFP or Runtastic - which is more accurate?'
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    Runtastic. MFP doesnt take into account elevation of your run and other such variables. More like makes an educated guess. If you play football for 45 minutes, MFP will not know how much of this time you are stationary, sprinting, jogging, etc, where as a GPS would at least know exactly how far you have travelled.

    Same logic applies for running.


    which is great, except using distance, elevation, etc is still an educated guess. Using a HRM is much more accurate, as the work you are doing during the run and how your body is using oxygen is a more reliable way to calculate calories burned.
    '
    That's great, but the question was 'MFP or Runtastic - which is more accurate?'
    then the answer is neither.
  • eldamiano
    eldamiano Posts: 2,667 Member
    Runtastic. MFP doesnt take into account elevation of your run and other such variables. More like makes an educated guess. If you play football for 45 minutes, MFP will not know how much of this time you are stationary, sprinting, jogging, etc, where as a GPS would at least know exactly how far you have travelled.

    Same logic applies for running.


    which is great, except using distance, elevation, etc is still an educated guess. Using a HRM is much more accurate, as the work you are doing during the run and how your body is using oxygen is a more reliable way to calculate calories burned.
    '
    That's great, but the question was 'MFP or Runtastic - which is more accurate?'
    then the answer is neither.

    Wrong (blimey, you are a barrel of laughs)
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    I use an HRM. Compared to MFP or Runkeeper, I would say, for me, they're both a bit overstated. RunKeeper is pretty close though. I would say use Runtastic and maybe take 5% to 10% off the number to be safe.

Categories