Exercise calories burned way too high?

According to strava I've burned 740 calories for cycling 1 hour and 54 minutes with an average speed of 20 km/h. So I have added this exercise manually to myfitnesspal since I hadn't connected my strava to it yet.

So I've selected "Bicycling, 19-23 kph" and it says i've burned 1,658 calories, which isn't even close to what Strava says.

Which one is most accurate? 1,658 seems way too high to me.



Btw, is there any way I can still sync my Strava workout from earlier today to myfitnesspal?

Replies

  • puffbrat
    puffbrat Posts: 2,806 Member
    Go with the Strava. I don't have a Strava so I'm not sure about the syncing.
  • Commander_Keen
    Commander_Keen Posts: 1,194 Member
    Get a Heart rate monitor.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 40,993 Member
    According to strava I've burned 740 calories for cycling 1 hour and 54 minutes with an average speed of 20 km/h. So I have added this exercise manually to myfitnesspal since I hadn't connected my strava to it yet.

    So I've selected "Bicycling, 19-23 kph" and it says i've burned 1,658 calories, which isn't even close to what Strava says.

    Which one is most accurate? 1,658 seems way too high to me.



    Btw, is there any way I can still sync my Strava workout from earlier today to myfitnesspal?

    Go with Strava...if anything, I find Strava to be slightly low but relatively in line with what I've gotten trying out a power meter.
  • sarabushby
    sarabushby Posts: 651 Member
    What are your stats?
    Did you definitely chose bicycling 19-23kph not mph? Only when I log bicycling it only offers me mph. But that might be based on my UK location I guess. Just thought it worth checking.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,740 Member
    Go with Strava - I find it perfectly reasonable over thousands of miles of road riding. It also compares mostly quite close to my Garmin (before Strava started using the partner app's data), also compares well to my power meter numbers.
    Strava tries to estimate your power output from your speed and terrain.

    The MyFitnessPal estimates are very, very high for road bikes. Might be OK for a hilly ride off road, maybe, perhaps.... 1658cals in under two hours would be a very serious level of cycling fitness which few can attain.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,927 Member
    A power meter can tell you calorie use on a bike with a maximum error of 5%, but they're expensive and overkill for most people.

    Strava works by calculating the power required to do what you did. It tends to be pretty reasonable except for wind and drafting.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,927 Member
    Get a Heart rate monitor.

    In practice, the best HRMs routinely overestimate cycling calories by as much as 300%.
  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,465 Member
    sarabushby wrote: »
    What are your stats?
    Did you definitely chose bicycling 19-23kph not mph? Only when I log bicycling it only offers me mph. But that might be based on my UK location I guess. Just thought it worth checking.
    That doesn’t explain the question because 19 kph equals only 11 mph and thus would burn fewer calories not more.
  • jlklem
    jlklem Posts: 259 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    Go with Strava - I find it perfectly reasonable over thousands of miles of road riding. It also compares mostly quite close to my Garmin (before Strava started using the partner app's data), also compares well to my power meter numbers.
    Strava tries to estimate your power output from your speed and terrain.

    The MyFitnessPal estimates are very, very high for road bikes. Might be OK for a hilly ride off road, maybe, perhaps.... 1658cals in under two hours would be a very serious level of cycling fitness which few can attain.

    Sijomial is spot on with this...

    I have lost over a hundred pounds of the over the years using Strava’s numbers. I typically gain 10 or so pounds every winter and then lose it all for race/big mile season using MyFitnessPal logs and Strava exercise calories. Been do this for over a decade.

    John
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,831 Member
    lorrpb wrote: »
    sarabushby wrote: »
    What are your stats?
    Did you definitely chose bicycling 19-23kph not mph? Only when I log bicycling it only offers me mph. But that might be based on my UK location I guess. Just thought it worth checking.
    That doesn’t explain the question because 19 kph equals only 11 mph and thus would burn fewer calories not more.

    I'll bet 19-23 mph was selected - and that's fast enough that high calorie burn would be reasonable without any specific factors.

    OP - Ditto to Strava linking though.
    Just confirm your stats on there are correct - your weight and bike weight.
    To which you may want to add clothes/accessories weight since it went for the ride too. Not sure if Strava uses each weight in a part of the calculation, or just totals them up, but total weight on the road will help estimate.