Calories Burned Map My Fitness vs My Fitness Pal

Options
JonnyHicks
JonnyHicks Posts: 8 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Anyone that uses these two apps will notice that a huge calorie difference in most work outs for example a 40 Road bike ride on MMF is 1200is for me and my fitness pal is 800. Which one is more accurate and why?
I done interval running today My fitness pal said 420 calories vs MMF over 800.

Replies

  • teatumbles
    teatumbles Posts: 17 Member
    Options
    I noticed that too, I have no idea what it means.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    Options
    You've posted this already
  • spring913
    spring913 Posts: 158 Member
    Options
    I noticed that too. It irritates me. The only thing I can think of is that UA didn't develop either app, and the algorithms are different. As for which one is correct? I have no clue. I want to go with the lower calorie burn option to be safe, but hate having to put the info into MFP manually when it does it automatically with MMF.
  • badnoodle
    badnoodle Posts: 216 Member
    Options
    I believe MMF is supposed to include altitude and pace change in the figures. I've seen fairly different calorie counts on jogs of the same time length, but steady jog vs. intervals.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,390 Member
    Options
    Often MFP estimates are based on simple calculations and assumptions of work effort, or ranges of work effort. Most apps that use GPS understand changes in work effort, acceleration, speed differences, etc, and as such have more data points that would help them calculate better. But many of those apps fail in using that data very well anyway.

    There are ways to find better calorie calculations for most usual fitness activities. For biking, Strava seems to be well liked and reasonably close in calorie burn. Short of testing and/or more expensive devices to calculate with, you can only do so much.

Categories