Fitbit vs. Runkeeper calories burned

julsdolphin
julsdolphin Posts: 32 Member
edited November 29 in Fitness and Exercise
I've noticed quite a discrepancy between fitbit and runkeeper when showing calories burned. Today for example I walked trails and hills for an hour. Fitbit says I burned 440 calories but runkeeper says I only burned 286. Which one should I trust? I'm leaning towards fitbit since it has a heart rate monitor. But it's quite a difference. Thoughts?

Replies

  • tonyshort204
    tonyshort204 Posts: 3 Member
    Brisk walking I've heard is around 6 calories per minute so if you were also going up hills I'd say a bit more so perhaps Fitbit is right. Do both have your weight entered?
  • christinabievelot
    christinabievelot Posts: 4 Member
    I would think the heart rate monitor (fitbit in this case) is more accurate.
  • julsdolphin
    julsdolphin Posts: 32 Member
    Yes, both have my weight entered. I think I'll go with the fitbit but maybe not eat all of the calories back. Thanks!
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    Is the HRM properly calibrated for your resting and max heart rates? Then probably fitbit. If not, the algorithm will not be right unless you're in the 50% where 220-age is pretty accurate.

    I can't use my HRM calculated calories for that reason even for steady state cardio. My HRM won't let me set my actual max HR and I'm not in the 50%. Calories calculated for me are way too high.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories