Is there some assumption being applied about efficiency of the Work being done to arrive at kcal?

Intervals.icu uses whatever is in the .fit file or the value supplied by Strava (â€śthe value supplied by its upload partnersâ€ť i.e. also what is in the fit file). Garmin et al are probably assuming an efficiency of 21-23%.

Iâ€™m still confused on this matter.

The â€śWORKâ€ť bellow was the one calculate by Interval for a given planned workout.

And here you find both Garminâ€™s numbers from the executed workout:

And they are the same = 918Kj and 917C

My doubt : Based on efficiency shouldnâ€™t â€ścaloriesâ€ť and â€śworkâ€ť be different?

Tks

It seems as though the calculations are something that Garmin is making, and not I.ICU. The â€śworkâ€ť makes sense, as it follows the common convention of (avg W x 3.6 x hrs = kJs ofâ€ť workâ€ťmetric. My guess is that there are some data dropouts that result in a very minor difference between what Garmin calculates vs. what I.ICU calculates, as the I.ICU number is consistently lower by a handful of calories.

However, this leaves me more confused about how Garmin is calculating the kcal, which can be meaningfully different than the kJs calculated. I.e. ~418kcal in my recent 4.5 hour rideâ€¦.

**Answer** : Divide the amount of kJs by 4.184 then divide by .25. Calories burned cycling are dependent on your Gross Metabolic Efficiency, but for most people, itâ€™s between 20-25%. That means for every Calorie you burn produces around 1.045 kilojoules. For practical reasons, most cyclists approximate 1 kJ is equal to 1 Calorie.

your case : 2,610/4.84/0.25= 2,157

Mine : 917/4.84/0.25 = 758

but avg heart rate takes a toll