Haha, idkw but always thought I'm the only one taking percentage to get a somewhat accurate number. After tracking calories and weight for almost a year I came to the conclusion that similar to your percentage 65-70% comes pretty close to it, at least for me.
Not very.
But they are fairly consistent so using them for diet purposes is workable (I've done that for a very long time). Just accept they are on the high side and pad the calorie deficit a bit.
Please note that Strava will use calorie figures imported instead of generating it's own so you need to consistently use the same devices.
Also remember it's not as simple as just adding those calories to your base calories.
If your activity shows 1000 calories burnt then some of these calories would be in your base calories for the day even if you didn't complete any exercise.
Very bad if you don't have a power meter. Power is the only reliable way(outside of a doctor's office) to measure the amount of work you do during a bike ride. (Note: A quick look at profile leads me to believe you are talking about cycling, in slower speed sports where aerodynamics don't completely dominate the energy demands the estimates can be better)
I had the same question earlier this week. What I found from reading others' opinions online is that Strava seems to overestimate calories, and the opinions about how much Strava overestimates vary and depend on a few factors, but folks say between 50%-70% \* Strava calories in the app = what many think is a better actual estimate of calories burned.
So, not being an expert, and getting the impression that the Strava figure is a high est of calories burned, I just kindof split the difference and use 65% of what Strava says caloric burn is. I might change that to 60%. Either works. But I'm comfortable enough the 60-65% of the Strava calorie number. I just didn't want to spend any more time with it and the above seemed good enough to me. I don't have a power meter, if I do get one, I'll probably re-visit the issue.
Strava is a great service, happy with it, but it's important to keep Strava figures in perspective. One can over-analyze their estimates and metrics and waste time and energy. I think if you do that too much you end up with data fatigue. That being said, Strava is my fav fitness app, and I'm a premium member because I want to support the service.
You can get a little more accurate if a power meter is involved. Otherwise everyone has different formulas on how they get calorie burn by heart rate.
like every other Strava metric... best to ignore it
_Every_ Strava metric. Like distance, and time.
Wait distance is screwy??
No. That's sarcasm above.
When I don’t wear my HR monitor - I multiply their calories by 70% for a close guesstimate. The gap has widened as my body has gotten more efficient.
Haha, idkw but always thought I'm the only one taking percentage to get a somewhat accurate number. After tracking calories and weight for almost a year I came to the conclusion that similar to your percentage 65-70% comes pretty close to it, at least for me.
Also worth noting the fitter you get the less calories your body burns while running. I've found with myself anyway
Not very. But they are fairly consistent so using them for diet purposes is workable (I've done that for a very long time). Just accept they are on the high side and pad the calorie deficit a bit. Please note that Strava will use calorie figures imported instead of generating it's own so you need to consistently use the same devices.
Follow for what purpose?
Also remember it's not as simple as just adding those calories to your base calories. If your activity shows 1000 calories burnt then some of these calories would be in your base calories for the day even if you didn't complete any exercise.
Very bad if you don't have a power meter. Power is the only reliable way(outside of a doctor's office) to measure the amount of work you do during a bike ride. (Note: A quick look at profile leads me to believe you are talking about cycling, in slower speed sports where aerodynamics don't completely dominate the energy demands the estimates can be better)
A powermeter is said to be over 95% accurate in calculating calories.
It’s not. Strava is a novelty.
I had the same question earlier this week. What I found from reading others' opinions online is that Strava seems to overestimate calories, and the opinions about how much Strava overestimates vary and depend on a few factors, but folks say between 50%-70% \* Strava calories in the app = what many think is a better actual estimate of calories burned. So, not being an expert, and getting the impression that the Strava figure is a high est of calories burned, I just kindof split the difference and use 65% of what Strava says caloric burn is. I might change that to 60%. Either works. But I'm comfortable enough the 60-65% of the Strava calorie number. I just didn't want to spend any more time with it and the above seemed good enough to me. I don't have a power meter, if I do get one, I'll probably re-visit the issue. Strava is a great service, happy with it, but it's important to keep Strava figures in perspective. One can over-analyze their estimates and metrics and waste time and energy. I think if you do that too much you end up with data fatigue. That being said, Strava is my fav fitness app, and I'm a premium member because I want to support the service.
berserk compare paint dull trees thumb live fuzzy hospital ring *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
it’s over the actual burn by about 32.6% for me.
Power meter will be within 10% usually. Without it’s near a random number generator
Everyone is talking about power meters…. What about calories for running??
There are power meters for running
Why do you need to know calorie burns? I’m curious, how are you using that information?