Strava vs. MFP calories burned

fatninja111

I'm sure this has been discussed before but I have a question about exercise calories using Strava vs. MFP. I recently started biking and started using Strava. When I finish riding it gives me a calorie burned that is less then what MFP has given me and I only enter in half of my time in MFP! Is Strava off or is MFP just being too generous? I use the lowest available setting for biking (less than 10 miles an hour) when entering in amounts on MFP.

flash4203

I would like to know this as well

scorpio516

I haven't compared riding in a while, but for running...

I'll use my run today as an example.
35:30. Using HRM
Strava: 642 KCal
MFP: 572 KCal
Garmin: 473 KCal

MFP was pretty close to average of the three, so I used that.

Last time I went riding:
I bent a front wheel, 18:05

Strava: 153 KCal
MFP: 274 KCal
Garmin: 301 KCal

Strava does seem really low! MFP is pretty similar to Garmin's calculation (note, I was using a forerunner 405 without a HRM at the time)

ashkh

Is anyone else finding the Strava calories are different when synced with MFP? For example Strava says I burned 121 but MFP says the same journey was 300+. Is it doubling my rides automatically??

jimmymatamata

From my ride this evening:

Cycle computer (which calculates using my heart-rate) calculated my calories burned of 885 (3702 kJ).
Strava calculated my calories burned of 817 (3418 kJ).

MyFitnessPal (linked to Strava) calculated my calories burned of 1189 (4975 kJ).

I would guess that my cycle computer (using my heart-rate) is probably the most accurate but I am willing to accept the figure from Strava as it is within the ball-park.

MFP seems to be over estimating calories burned. Perhaps MFP should just use the calories burned from directly from Strava. I would be more comfortable with that.

sijomial

I find Strava to be very low and MFP "fast" category to be very high. I did a comparison between different estimates for the same ride.....

36 mile ride @ average of 16.45mph in 2hrs 11mins on my hybrid (none of the estimators know the kind of bike I ride BTW).
I'm 5'9" and 164lbs.
Fairly fit for an old fella, good VO2 max and low pulse (none of the estimators know that either)

I would describe this as a fairly fast ride for me - average heartbeat 80% of my tested max HR.

Strava (free app) - 1123
Runkeeper (free app) - 1542
Polar FT7 HRM - 1570
MyFitnessPal "vigorous" (14-16mph) - 1624
MyFitnessPal "fast" (16-20mph) - 1949

That's a huge spread but middle three not too far apart.

Usually Runkeeper comes out higher than my HRM. Maybe the pie eating van driver that turned across me at a junction and tried to run me off the road spiked my heart rate a bit?

To see rest of the thread. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1317695-question-about-calories-burned

Frood42

I use a combination of MFP, FitBit, Endomondo and Strava for tracking daily activity.

I don't use MFP for calorie burns as it over estimates quite a bit.
I avoid using Endomondo as again that can over estimate quite a bit due to the way they calculate calories burned (even with HR data it can be quite high).

I prefer Strava, as when it is available it uses power data, which is the most accurate method, although if you don't have a power meter it uses estimated power (which isn't quite as accurate, but probably close enough).

https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/20959327-Calorie-Calculation
https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/20959332-power-calculations

https://support.endomondo.com/hc/en-us/articles/201861383-Calories

.

cloggsy71

MFP's calorie figures are nothing more than random numbers plucked from 'nothingness'.

Strava's are still a little high, but close enough IMHO!

Jusylte

I only trust devices with HRM sensor

kaotik2003

From my ride this evening:

Cycle computer (which calculates using my heart-rate) calculated my calories burned of 885 (3702 kJ).
Strava calculated my calories burned of 817 (3418 kJ).

MyFitnessPal (linked to Strava) calculated my calories burned of 1189 (4975 kJ).

I would guess that my cycle computer (using my heart-rate) is probably the most accurate but I am willing to accept the figure from Strava as it is within the ball-park.

MFP seems to be over estimating calories burned. Perhaps MFP should just use the calories burned from directly from Strava. I would be more comfortable with that.

I have to agree with you. I use Garmin with heart beat monitor and pace monitor and it gives almost the same as strava. I guess MFP is off giving too much burned calories. So I would go more for Strava since it uses all your speed, altitude calculations while MFP tryes to guess only by time and speed.

jimmymatamata

I have logged the issue with MFP and am working with them to pinpoint the issue, hopefully it will be fixed soon.

katiew78

I don't know how strava calculate their calories, but they do seem awfully mean for cycling, but generous for running!
I did 26mile ride in 105minutes and it gave me 730cals, but a 6.8mile run, in 65mins gave me 780... It is linked to a HRM via tomtom mysports watch. This gives me maybe 600-650 for the run, and about 900 for the ride. My OH (who weighs just over 14st) did a 56 mile ride, with over 2000feet elevation, HR 150 for 3.5hours and it gave him under 2000cals for this-which works out under 500cals an hour, which for constant sustained effort seems a little low.

Klarini

Well I always taught Strava was a bit rubbish at estimating calories because my husband gets some crazy high readings (like 2500kcal) but now it seems like he may be actually burning even more than that! When I look at my HRM reading of mere 450kcal after an intense boot camp training I wish I was a tall big guy like him. Well he does cycle a lot (and fast), so I guess he earned it.

crawlspeed

If your calories seem a bit low in Strava try going to your profile online and adding in your bike and its weight. I have just started using Strava and was noticing the calories were much lower than the MFP estimates. After adding my mountain bike and its 35 pounds the numbers are much closer. I can only assume MFP is figuring for a more casual user and heavier bike and Strava is figuring for a light weight bike by default or no bike at all unless you enter it.

On 4 almost identical rides last week these were my results:

Ride 1: MFP estimate only - Bicycling, 12-14 mph, moderate (cycling, biking, bike riding) Time: 23 Calories: 344
Ride 2: Strava App before bike added - Bicycling, 12-14 mph, moderate (cycling, biking, bike riding) Time: 27 Calories: 186
Ride 3: Strava App before bike added - Bicycling, 12-14 mph, moderate (cycling, biking, bike riding) Time: 28 Calories: 217
Ride 4: Strava App after adding bike - Bicycling, 12-14 mph, moderate (cycling, biking, bike riding) Time: 27 Calories: 353

After adding the bike I am definitely more comfortable using the Strava synced results.

hsilgnede

I used Strava for the first time today. It calculated less than half what Endomondo which I've been using for 2 years calculated for the same 25k cycle. MFP was closer to the Endomondo figure but still under. Up to now I have taken the Endomondo as being more accurate than MFP because it knows elevation and accurate speed (rather than ballpark) but Strava knows these things too and still is less than half. Fairly confused now now to be honest.

cloggsy71

MFP's calorie figures are nothing more than random numbers plucked from 'nothingness'.

Strava's are still a little high, but close enough IMHO!

My new Garmin 810's calorie-count is even lower than Strava's. My Garmin is now my 'yard-stick'!

toptigerz

If your calories seem a bit low in Strava try going to your profile online and adding in your bike and its weight. I have just started using Strava and was noticing the calories were much lower than the MFP estimates. After adding my mountain bike and its 35 pounds the numbers are much closer. I can only assume MFP is figuring for a more casual user and heavier bike and Strava is figuring for a light weight bike by default or no bike at all unless you enter it.

I agree - Strava has more info to base the calculateion on when you've input the bike details so I've been using that. I have Strava linked to MFP so I don't need to input anything as it automatically syncs to it. I used to use mapmyride before Strava (and still do for my horse riding) but that always seems pretty generous on the calories too.

davert123

https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/20959332-power-calculations

Strava bases calories on power. The power calculation has two big assumptions. The first is that everyone has the same Cross sectional area. So if you are bigger than the person they based it on then it will underestimate. It also assumes zero wind. This sounds ok because it sounds like it should cancel out if you ride a loop BUT the wind velocity is cubed. Say you ride out and back so the wind is in your face on the way out and on your back as you return. Ssy the wind is 10 mph and your average speed is 10mph in both directions. On the way out the real velocity term would be 20x20x20 = 8000 and on the way back 0.so over all you woul experience 4000 of whatever power units it uses. Strava calculates it at 10x10x10 = 1000 in both directions = an average of of 2000 I.e. 1/2 the power. This is of course a simplification but as wind speed increases stravas accuracy decreases significantly from what they say. I use a polar hrm. It tracks my calories to within 5% at the gym agsinst static power based machines. Agsinst strava it was anout 40% over on a blowy day. Think im going to opt for the mid ground and just average them

Liorde

Strava is ridiculously low without as far as I can tell. Perhaps it would be more accurate with an actual power meter, but this is beyond my price range atm. When my average heart rate is 92% of max for almost 40 minutes, I'm pretty sure I burned more than 190 calories. Mapmyride (same company as MFP) calculates my calories burned at 817 for the same workout.

briandickinson83

See I'm having exactly the opposite problem. I go on a moderately challenging 30 minute road bike ride and Strava says I burn just under 500 calories (not possible).

robertw486

For those having issues with seemingly very low or high calorie burns with Strava, are you putting in your weight and the type and weight of the bike? Under gear it does allow for the type and weight of the bike, and obviously user weight is a larger impact unless a person gets lucky and is at a weight that falls near whatever Strava defaults to.

I've compared Strava to bike calculators and it seems fairly close in calorie burn. Though I don't own a power meter, I've seen people comment that Strava was reasonable.



As for Endomondo, I used it for a year or so. The problem I found was that it also calculated BMR calories, and calculated high. If I adjusted for that the calorie burn came out close to Strava, so it seems they are similar other than the BMR factor. I haven't used Endo in years, but if you want to check, set it to start a ride and sit your phone down. The calories will start clicking away, and likely faster than the average BMR.



Due to the speed ranges used by the MFP database, more variance will take place. Most apps account for true speeds, elevation changes, and acceleration events. Not accounting for wind is still a weakness, but more data is better than less data.

kcjchang

davert123 wrote: »

https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/20959332-power-calculations

"We have seen that in most cases our watts number are very close to the numbers provided by a Powertap or SRM... Our calculations are most accurate when climbing given accurate rider and bike weight."

While I don't have a Powertap or SRM but I do have a Stages and a Pioneer and I find this statement overreaching. Strava Virtual Power is a good estimate when the right condition present itself.

NorthCascades

I would go with Strava over MFP every time for cycling calories.