Message Boards » Fitness and Exercise

TOPIC: vs calories burned

Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
June 22, 2012 11:38 AM
i just started using on my phone today and it said i walked at 3.5 mph for 33 mins and only burned 126 calories. i logged it into MFP and it said i burned 216 calories...... wth? which one is do i believe to be correct?
June 22, 2012 11:41 AM
It's tough to say.
The consensus is that MFP is a little overestimated when it comes to caloric burn. Most users suggest using a HRM or timing your average heart rate and calculating your calorie burn that way.

In my case, I burn much more calories than MFP says after measuring my heart rate.
June 22, 2012 11:42 AM
If your phone factors in your age/height/weight then go with your phone...It's really hard to get an accurate count if you're not using a HRM.
June 22, 2012 11:42 AM
I'd split the difference. My mapmyrun readings are super low, especially since the app update. My heart rate monitor gives me readings closer to MFP but MFP numbers are high for a lot of people. If you're worried about it, go with the lower the number since it's probably better to err on the low side when counting calories, in my opinion.
June 22, 2012 11:44 AM
These are both just estimated, neither are more than like correct.. A app cannot determine your HR or the effort, or even the type of terrain you ar on and these all contribute to how many cals you actually burn.. If you plan on eating your cals back, I would use the lower of the 2.. If you do plan on eating your cals back I would suggest that you pick up a HR monitor for when you exercise that has a chest band.. Good run/walk though!
June 22, 2012 11:45 AM
MFP is waaaay over with their exercises. A lot of people know about this, I don't know who put all the exercises in, but basically 99% of the calories burned are wrong...the ones that are right are the ones where you go to more trusted websites with calories burned and log it in yourself.
June 22, 2012 11:48 AM
mapmywalk wins the battle of accuracy any time.

It's familiar with terrain and if you've set it up properly it knows your height, weight, and age just as well as MFP. It can also take your actual speed into account as opposed to MFP's "brisk, moderate, "... etc settings.
Edited by myfitnessnmhoy On June 22, 2012 11:48 AM
June 22, 2012 11:51 AM
When it judged mine, it was WAY under compared to what my HRM said.\

Edited to add: When I say "it" I mean mapmyfitness.
Edited by pastryari On June 22, 2012 11:51 AM
June 22, 2012 11:51 AM
The usual average value for pedestrian motion (running, walking, skipping, whatever) is 100 Kcal/mile. So for 33 minutes at 3.5 mph, you should have use somewhere around 192 Kcal. I'd use the lower value myself, just to keeps things trending the right way (downward with weight). Of course, if you add other loads (racewalking, for example), you'd drive the caloric use per mile upward.
June 22, 2012 11:53 AM

mapmywalk wins the battle of accuracy any time.

It's familiar with terrain and if you've set it up properly it knows your height, weight, and age just as well as MFP. It can also take your actual speed into account as opposed to MFP's "brisk, moderate, "... etc settings.

I would go with this as well...I found that my HRM matched up more closely to what Endomondo (a similar app) had given me.
June 23, 2012 8:20 AM
Wow! I didn't know this... maybe this is why I am not seeing weight loss this week, eating back all of my exercise calories! Ugh. This is frustrating. I am not going to log exercise calories if this is the case.
July 6, 2012 5:52 PM
Hi here is a Map My Walk, which shows calories burned which I believe is more likely to be correct, there is a difference of 70 Cals. I am happy to share the standard walk I take for others to see.
July 6, 2012 8:58 PM
I just started using MapMyWAlk because I know am a proud owner of an iPhone, (haha) and MMW definitely differs from MFP. MFP was more than MMW, so I tend to go w/ MMW since it takes into account average speed, elevation (I live in a very hilly area-- north shore of central Long Island)

I only used MFP last year and it seems accurate, because I was losing 2lbs/week at one point, so we'll see what MMW does for me this year!

I do not have a HRM, and can't afford one, so I won't be using one.
April 26, 2013 12:14 PM
I used MayMyWalk and my Polar Ft4 for a 51 minute 3.47 mile walk today. MMW says I burned 573 calories while my HRM shows 391. I will go with my HRM as I think it is more accurate. MFP estimates are too high!
April 26, 2013 12:18 PM
Cell phones just by their nature are inherently inaccurate, just view your walk close up and you'll what I mean
April 26, 2013 12:21 PM
It's different for everybody. I have polar FT7 and it says I burn more in a walk the MFP says I do but a whole lot less than Map My Fitness does. I think going with the lowest estimate is the best suggestion (especially if you eat back some or all of your exercsie calories).
April 26, 2013 12:38 PM
I lost the bulk of my weight using MFPs calorie burns. I have been using a HRM for over a year now and the burns are pretty darn close to what MFP says.
April 26, 2013 1:03 PM
If Im going to make the effort to measure & log all my food as accurately as I can, I think it's just as important to try and get the exercise calories right too.

I take an average of MFP, MapMyRun and Calorie Calc. and use that figure. Some days MFP is pretty close to the Calorie Calc and once, was exactly the same.


Message Boards » Fitness and Exercise

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.