1748 cal in 94 minutes - Really?

[Bobby Mhor]

I'm 5' 10", 17.5 Stone

Pfft !! lightweight..
I'm stone and a half heavier..

Wed run..
20.06 ml (below apps elevation varies between 724 and 1001 ft.)
Strava says 1038 cals...
Garmin Connect says 1589 cals
Polar says 1323 cals
Map My Ride says 1589 cals..

Its a guess, just note your mileage..

 

[Racing roadkill]

It gets a little more accurate with a heart rate monitor, but I've found that the Strava calorie estimates and the MFP tie up to be pretty accurate. When you hit the 'complete' button on MFP, it gives you a weight prediction, if every day was the same, in 5 weeks, thus far (a good 3 or 4 years in my case) it's been about +/- 2 Kg's. That's bloody witchcraft

 

[russ.will]

It's Strava and MFP that are giving the estimate that generated this thread, so that's interesting to know.

However, the scales are the arbiter of truth. Calories are easy to measure, so the variable is exercise. I'll post on my progress.

Russell

 

[gbb]

One thing that struck me re calories burned calculations is i USED to have to enter age, weight etc on previous computers...on Mapmyride for instance, it doesnt ask that (IIRC).
Similar to OPs stats, i rode 21 miles in 90 minutes, averAGE 15.6 MPH and supposedly burned 1100 calories according to MMRide.
Entered those stats into an online calculator, where it did ask weight, age, excercise type etc and it calculated just below 900 calories...not a million miles away, but then they both might still be wildly wrong.

 

[uclown2002]

All these websites and apps use different algorithms to compute calories burned; some of which use personal information like age, weight etc but some don't. I have two Garmin devices; an Edge 800 and a FR70 both loaded with the some personal info yet their calculations differ wildly; often by as much as 40%
I think @Rob3rt calculated he burned ~42 calories per mile based on data from a power meter, so 30-40 calories per mile seems as good an estimate as any. If I was tracking calories with MFP I'd be using 30 calories per mile to be a little conservative.
You'd never know for sure unless you got wired up in a Lab and put through a proper test.

 

[PK99]

I'm 5' 10", 17.5 Stone (stop sniggering at the back) and with my normal training partner, did 24.5 miles (128ft elevation) in 1:32:30 at an average speed of 15.9mph. This is pretty much par for the course and I go a bit quicker by myself, headwinds and only 3 gears allowing.


Russell

http://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-biking/
How Many Calories Do You Burn Biking a Mile?

As you see above the number of calories burned biking a mile will depend on your weight and how fast you cover that mile, but as a general indicator here’s a couple of examples:

• a 150 person cycling a steady pace of 14 mph will burn 48 calories per mile, that same person traveling at 20 mph would burn 56 calories per mile.
• A 200 lb person biking at a normal speed of 14mph will burn 64 calories per mile, if they sped up to 20 mph this would increase to 75 calories per mile.

 

[Bazzer]

Just put in my personal data into MMR. It comes up with almost 1500 calories. MFP says over 1600. Garmin with HRM 865.
If I were you, I'd take MMR and MFP with a slab of salt. As has already been said, scales will be your ultimate judge.

 

[russ.will]

Quite.

Russell

 

[Travs]

Power meter is going to be the most accurate (best of a bad bunch) way of telling as you can start to calculate how much energy is required to produce the wattage that you do.
This is the inherent problem with non-power meter calculations are that it tries to work out how much energy has been required to move <a given weight> along <a given distance> incorporating a speculated rolling/aerodynamic resistance and using the gradients on the map data. Nice attempt but its not valuable if you're going to compare.
As said, best thing to do is enjoy the cycling and reduce your intake a tad - it'll work over time.

 

[Dogtrousers]

This is something that crops up quite often. Calorie calculators use algorithms that use standard, guessed parameters and are unlikely to give an accurate figure. However, while they may not be accurate, they may be quite precise and repeatable. So you can compare two rides, take the calorie figures from them and compare them to good effect. What you can't do is compare them to anything other than the results of that particular algorithm, or use them to plan your diet.

 

[russ.will]

Now that is sensible logic and much like that which should be used with the bathroom scales. It's not the absolute, but the relative values and the direction in which they are moving.

Russell

 

[Ticktockmy]

Not knowing much about all this magic technology, when I have a weight problem normally at the end of a lazy winter, I just get on the bike and ride some nice hilly routes, then once a week, get the tape measure out and check the waist line, look in the mirror to check if the waist and bum sag have firmed up. I know from my tours of 3000+ miles I would normally drop in weight from 90Kgs to 80kg.

 

[Sittingduck]

Strava isn't that far off, imho. Maybe deduct a bit to play it safe, 20% perhaps.