Endomondo GPS and MFP Cals different by miles.

kenuk1
kenuk1 Posts: 64 Member
edited September 27 in Fitness and Exercise
Morning all or hello whatever time you guys are on, a quick help question for all you cyclists or runners/walkers.

I cycled to work this morning 7.43km ave speed 19.8km/h in 22 mins, Endomondo GPS has me down as burning 187 cals, when I add cardio exercise on MFP, 16-20km/h, 22 mins shows as 394 cals.

I feel Endomondo is likely to be closer to the truth, but can anyone shed any light on it for me...I dont mind adding the 187 cals, but if its 394, Im concerned about not consuming enough as I have to cycle home again, the difference between Edno and MFP for a round trip would be a missing 414 calories somewhere, thats approximately my evening meal.

Replies

  • BrandieB3
    BrandieB3 Posts: 4 Member
    good question as i use that program too and love it
  • kenuk1
    kenuk1 Posts: 64 Member
    Yeah, I only have the free version at the minute but will likely upgrade soon it's that good. However, it's tad confiusing when used in line with MFP lol
  • BryanAir
    BryanAir Posts: 434
    I can't say for certain because I don't know how much you weigh, but the endomondo number sounds a lot more likely. I typically log about 10 calories per minute for my riding at 16-20 miles per hour.
  • kenuk1
    kenuk1 Posts: 64 Member
    Yeah Im thinking Endo is right aswell, Im 90kg at the minute, 5ft 11in and 36 years old, if that helps you give me more idea?
  • Slayer66
    Slayer66 Posts: 265
    I was using runtastic on my BB but I would have issues of only part of my trip recording ill have to check out that one.

    I cycle to work approx 8 km each way takes about 45 mins total and I count it as closer to 400 total more like what my stationary with HRM used to tell me.

    Although it always seems I have a 30 - 50 KM wind in my face no matter what direction im going so i would guess a little higher but not the nearly 700 MFP says
  • kathrynthomas5
    kathrynthomas5 Posts: 24
    I didn't know there was a KM per hour. I use the 12 to 14 MILES per hour one - I ride around 19.5 to 20km per hour for 35 minutes and it's almosts identical to my heart rate monitor reading which is 330.
  • carolww
    carolww Posts: 143 Member
    I think the HRM is the only reliable way to tell. Everything else is just a guideline I suspect.
  • inertiadriftsc
    inertiadriftsc Posts: 29
    So your calorie burn depends on many factors! VO2 or your maximal oxygen consumption, resting heart rate and max heart rate are some of these factors. Essentially, these factors determine how efficient your body is at exercising!
    http://www.livestrong.com/article/39443-heart-rate-vs.-calories-burned/

    So, depending on the estimates being made about your body by the calorie calculator you are using, the calorie count can be drastically changed! An out of shape person at 180 lbs will burn significantly more calories than someone who is 180 lbs of lean mass, assuming the same power output and time. From the looks of it Endomondo guesses that you are in better than average shape and MFP assumes you are less than average shape, so most than likely I would say your actual calorie burned is somewhere in the middle. Good luck!
  • kenuk1
    kenuk1 Posts: 64 Member
    Great answers and especially inertiadriftsc, I never looked at it like that to be honest.

    Im not in bad shape if honest so I would imagine MFP is too high, I'll check Endomondo tonight when I go home and make sure theres no major difference from this morning, and go from there.

    I think, so far, if Endomondo is telling me Im averaging 19.7km/h, using MFP 12-14kim/h will be somewhere in the middle...

    Keep them coming though, it's an interesting one this.
  • Amy_Do
    Amy_Do Posts: 20
    Hi there - I use a HRM and I just did a 50 minute ride averaging between 18-20 and MFP had me at 400 cal but my HRM said 260 so I would say your endo results are more likely correct - just my opinion. I find the running values here very close to my HRM but the cycling ones are very different. Once again this is just my opinion.
  • kathrynthomas5
    kathrynthomas5 Posts: 24
    19.7km per hour is 12.24 miles pers hour so that would be the best one. Are there cycling ones on MFP that are in km per hour. I can only find miles per hour and therefore convert for metric.
  • inertiadriftsc
    inertiadriftsc Posts: 29
    I generally use the MFP estimate, because around my town there I generally have an elevation gain of around 200-300 vertical feet. So on good days I get going over 30 mph down to school and I generally get about 12mph going back so I put in the 12mph estimate and it seems to be ok because Ive kept up the 1lb per week loss Ive been going for. I also do this with an extra 10lbs or so with my backpack so MFP seems to be my best estimate. When I go on more extreme bike rides like 20+ miles on the weekend, without my backpack I generally drop my speed a category on MFP to get my estimate to make sure, because the 14-16mile per hour category usually seems excessively high.
  • kenuk1
    kenuk1 Posts: 64 Member
    No, Im a nugget lol, I realise that now, so yeah, MFP is in mph, 12-14mph is probs the best one to use, but its sitll slightly higher, I can live with that. 180 Endo, 263 MFP - sound about right?

    Thanks Kathryn!
  • Forensi
    Forensi Posts: 56 Member
    I use Endomondo when I go running and I also have a heart rate monitor. I have compared the 2 and compared them with MFP and found the HRM and Endomondo to be fairly accurate.
  • chillijam1
    chillijam1 Posts: 62 Member
    i always enter my own calories on has to what ive done, than what is on the MFP so at least i know it is correct ,it is also the same for the food also ,has ive found some things on the database to not be correct ,so ive started entering my own on has and when i use a new item so at least i know it is correct to packet or product to which ive used.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories