Yes agreed. Anything that affects frontal area or drag can have a very significant effect... an effect that Strava can't factor into it's calculations.

Anyway, back on topic: regardless of the overall accuracy of Strava's power estimates, you should see a fairly consistent relationship between average power * time, the kJ expended and the calories expended.

Look at the MATH, it is a straight linear regression. I have posted it several times, so I am guessing you don't understand it, but think it is wrong because you don't understand it.

Once again:
1 METs = 3.5 x weight in kg ÷ 200

Specifically:
x weight in kg


So if I put in 100Kg, my weight, it is 3.5 x 100 / 200 = 1.75
If I put in 50Kg, half my weight, it is 3.5 x 50 /200 = 0.875

Straight one to one relationship. Half the weight, half the METS, double the weight, double the METS.

QED.

Feel free to argue about math, or the science behind it, but the process is not wrong.

Show me your science. I showed you mine.

Referenced, peer reviewed work like the METS research.

I have a master's degree in math. Aside from you not knowing what a linear regression is, you also don't seem to understand that arbitrarily assigning some value like 10 METS to a given speed is wildly inaccurate. Gravity is not the main source of resistance unless you are going up a hill. As such, weight doesn't matter much. This is what made the invention of the wheel so groundbreaking. Can you understand this?

You don't need to keep posting the same irrelevant formulas again and again. I understand them perfectly. What you don't understand is that their application to cycling is essentially worthless.

It is not arbitrary, it is from the research done by the METS group, measuring METS per effort for hundreds of activities, not just cycling. I put the link in the other thread.
It is not in the formula above, but for cycling it is "10"
That is just for the base MET of 1.

Oh, and still waiting on your research for your method.

This is a joke right? I've seen nothing relevant from you. BTW, from wikipedia on the Metabolic Equivalent of Task:
Seriously, you're trying to use an incredibly generic concept as though it is the absolute final truth. It's like telling a ripped bodybuilder he's obese because his BMI number says so.

So basically, what it's really doing is organizing activities in an ordinal scale, not actually estimating the calories burned in a specific hour of whatever by individual x. It's a bit misleading then that they factor in exactly one characteristic of the person--their weight.

I think the BMI thing is actually quite apt here--for example, I'm 5'9" 172 lbs., with a lot of leg muscle. I find it very hard to believe that someone who was exactly the same weight and height, but had a higher ratio of body fat to leg muscle or even of upper body muscle to leg muscle would be as efficient as I am--I'm pretty sure my more efficient leg muscles would burn fewer calories to achieve the same speed and duration.

The correct MET for riding a bicycle 13 MPH is 8, not 10, BTW, but you didn't hear it from me. https://sites.google.com/site/compen...ries/bicycling

Same speed, same weight. Different power requirements. Hmmm maybe an arbitrary scale that was done for 821 activities isn't all that accurate for any given one?

https://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/The_..._Bike_163.html
You'll note that a rider's mass is really only a factor in calculation of the tire drag and that is a fairly small portion of the overall effort, particularly at high speeds.

The force required to overcome wind resistance is proportional to the square of the speed (mass again not a factor).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)
Does your precious METS calculation consider whether a person is drafting or not, what position they are in on the bike, whether there is a headwind or not? These all affect the amount of power you put out.

But seriously, you're trolling here right? If so, well played. If not... yikes.

Yeah, I saw that too. The whole idea that someone should use this and not actual power meter data or put much faith in a formula that gives the same estimate for calories burned for 12 and 13.9 mph is mind boggling.

The basic assumption is that the resting calorie needs of a heavy person are greater than that of a thinner person, and activities are calculated by using a multiple of the resting calorie burn with the multiple being defined by the intensity of the activity. So, no matter what the activity is, the heavier person is going to be credited with burning more calories for the same amount of exercise. Basically, it's all guesstimate, with assumption being multiplied by assumption, and is useless for estimating what you actually burned for a given activity.