Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physical Fitness Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for physical fitness professionals, athletes, trainers, and those providing health-related needs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've been working out by running around the neighborhood lately, and I've been tracking my runs on two running sites, as well as keeping track of the calories on MyFitnessPal. However, I've been confuzzled lately about the calories that I should be tracking on my calorie tracking. For example, for a recent 46-minute heavy interval run, I get:

These numbers are wildly different, and I don't want to over or under-eat calories based on my diet. I would think that RunKeeper, which actually keeps track of my pace using the GPS and elevation would be better because of more data. Lately I have been trying to under-estimate by using the lowest of the three that come up.

Which number should I be trusting? Are any of these numbers worth anything?

share|improve this question
did you just use a GPS or did you also use a heart rate monitor? –  Ivo Flipse Nov 12 '11 at 8:30
The RunKeeper run is tracked with the GPS on my phone, which is in my pocket. It's not always accurate because of trees on the route, sometimes overestimating. The Dailymile route was mapped by hand so it's fairly accurate. –  jamuraa Nov 12 '11 at 15:56
The route may be accurate, the pace at which you traveled may not be :-) Either way, without knowing your heart rate or oxygen consumption estimating your calories is really a wild guess. –  Ivo Flipse Nov 12 '11 at 16:04
Well, I'm taking the time from the Runkeeper which is recorded on my phone (and I've tested independently to be accurate at at least keeping track of how much TIME it takes) and put it into Dailymile, so shouldn't the average pace still be correct? –  jamuraa Nov 12 '11 at 16:53
Well only if your route is flat and your speed is perfectly distributed... –  Ivo Flipse Nov 12 '11 at 17:35

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

They're worth a teeny bit :) It's a very rough estimate, and depends on all sorts of things, even the weather. (Perhaps not the phase of the moon.)

That said, the lower number is closer to what I'd expect.

share|improve this answer
Totally agree with @DaveNewton here; as an added query, why are you tracking calories burned? Are you comparing them to caloric intake? If you're just tracking runs to compare distance/time then I wouldn't worry about the calorie count at all :) –  Jedidja Nov 11 '11 at 17:02
I'm trying to track because I am indeed keeping track of my caloric intake versus expenditure in order to make sure that I am losing (well, maintaining now) weight over the long term. Basically the idea is that I should be replacing those calories with food to meet my daily calorie goals. –  jamuraa Nov 11 '11 at 20:15
@jamuraa To be honest, I'd just use a scale. –  Dave Newton Nov 11 '11 at 20:18
By a scale do you mean something like a FitBit, or are you suggesting that I should be able to figure out how many calories I expend by averaging over some weeks of weight data? I am confused. :/ –  jamuraa Nov 11 '11 at 20:53
@jamuraa I mean stand on a scale, and see if you're losing/gaining weight, and adjust accordingly. There are so many factors involved that even projecting an "optimal" caloric intake value is likely to be wrong essentially all the time. It's a long-term process predicated on consistency and general behavior, not easily quantifiable for small timescales. Jesus, what happened to that sentence?! –  Dave Newton Nov 11 '11 at 20:57

The sites obviously have different ways to calculate the final count. Check and see if they accept inputs like Effort required (which does not have any unit of measure), Your weight etc. If the measurable quantities are identical in all, then the formulas are different.

You can take the average :)

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.