The "Mapmy" apps.

lodgey8787
lodgey8787 Posts: 5 Member
edited December 2024 in Fitness and Exercise
Curious to see what people think of these. I'm doubting they're counting calories correctly. I know it's just a ballpark figure but mine worked out I'd burned 425 calories on a 66 min walk. Seems a bit much?

Replies

  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,993 Member
    They are rubbish in that respect. All apps overdo things somewhat, but these are totally ridiculous. They also display gross calories, btw (all likely do)
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Sounds like a huge over-estimate unless you are both extraordinarily heavy and walk at a very high pace for those 66 minutes (or up a mountain!).

    For general walking for exercise I use the simple formula bodyweight in lbs X miles walked X efficiency ratio of 0.3 so that a three mile walk for me at 170lbs would come to 153 net calories. Probably a bit conservative as doesn't take changes in elevation into account.

    (The difference between net and gross calorie estimates becomes more significant for low rate of burn but long duration exercise - like walking.)
  • lodgey8787
    lodgey8787 Posts: 5 Member
    Thank you both. Can you use the efficiency ratio method for cycling and running? Guess need a slightly different ratio?
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,993 Member
    For running the efficiency ratio is 0.64 I think. There isn't one for cycling as the mode of energy usage is too different. If you're light you can still pedal extremely hard and burn a lot of energy
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    lodgey8787 wrote: »
    Thank you both. Can you use the efficiency ratio method for cycling and running? Guess need a slightly different ratio?

    Running is roughly twice as inefficent as walking - efficiency ratio of 0.63

    Cycling you can use a formula very accurately but only if you use a power meter:
    Average watts for an hour x 3.6, again a net cal estimate.

    If you don't have a PM then neither speed or distance are at all universal methods for estimating. Yesterday I was on my road bike going at speed and today I was working hard to plough through sand on my mountain bike at about 4mph...

    Strava tries to estimate your power output based on terrain and speed. I'm fortunate that it by accident works out quite reasonably for me. Strava consistently under-estimates my power (due to poor aerodynamics mainly) but as it's a gross calorie estimate the two factors tend to cancel each other out.

    For my road bike the MyFitnessPal speed range estimates are pretty awful, about 50% too high.

  • lodgey8787
    lodgey8787 Posts: 5 Member
    Thanks all for your input. Actually very helpful.
    I know this isn't an exact science, but great to get as close as possible with these things.
  • John772016
    John772016 Posts: 135 Member
    Agree with the above posters.
    For myself, I found my calorie burn was 50-60% of most of the apps I've tried. My food logging in mtce was pretty solid so was able to see effects of exercise. Your mileage may vary....
This discussion has been closed.

Categories