Fitbit vs. Runkeeper calories burned

Options
julsdolphin
julsdolphin Posts: 32 Member
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
    Options
    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
    Options
    I would think the heart rate monitor (fitbit in this case) is more accurate.
  • julsdolphin
    julsdolphin Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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.

Categories