Biking - Low calorie burning.

[Vickygirl]

Hello,

When I ride my bike, > 20km/h, I burn too little calories.  When I go for a run 60 min, I burn 650 calories.

When I work out on my crosstrainer for 60 min, I burn 450 calories, en when I go biking I only burn 800 calories for 3 houres??? So that's just 266 calories per hour… I don't think this is correct.  Has anyone the same problem?  Is it maybe because you hold your hands at your steering wheel?  I have really no idea??   I've got the fitbit Alta HR 2.

Thanks!

[JohnnyRow]

Did you manually log this, or was it auto-detected?

[Vickygirl]

It was auto detected. Do I need a device with GPS for bike-riding?



Verzonden vanaf mijn Samsung Galaxy-smartphone.

[JohnnyRow]

If it was auto-detected, the calorie burn just comes from your heart rate determining how hard you were working.  The higher your heart rate was, the higher you calorie burn.

Compare your heart rate on bicycle ride vs. heart rate during the other workouts you cite.

[Dominique]

Ideally, you would record each activity on your Fitbit, which would allow you to see stats (e.g. average HR) for each activity afterwards. Unfortunately, your particular model (Alta HR) doesn’t let you start and stop an activity, nor would it let you tell it what activity you are doing.

You can check the MET for the various activities you are doing from the Compendium of Physical Activities. For instance, "elliptical trainer, moderate effort" has a MET of 5.0, while "bicycling 12-13.9mph" has a MET of 8.0 and "running 6mph" has a MET of 9.8.

Why are you interested in the accuracy of calories burned for each activity?

[Vickygirl]

Hi dominique,

I've been running the past 2 years around 35 km/week, but now I have to stop running because my knees are injured.  So I want the same calorieburning with bike-riding when I was running, if you understand what I mean.  I Have the ALTA HR 2 - I can choose an activity but I've never done that because the activity is automaticly recognized. 

[Baltoscott]

@Vickygirl - If you use the GPS you'll likely get a somewhat higher number because then fitbit will have both your heart rate and distance inputs in making its calculation.  As @JohnnyRow points out, in an auto-recongized ride it only has the heart-rate info to work with.  But you'll still have a hard time matching what you can do in the same amount to time running or on an cross-trainer because more of your body is moving in those activities (you aren't sitting down).

[Dominique]

I think it’s fair so say running is more demanding (in terms of energy requirements) than cycling. Cycling, especially on a flat, smooth surface is very efficient (limited friction) and does not require your legs to support and lift your entire body. In order to burn as many calories in one hour of cycling as in one hour of running, you need to make the cycling very challenging, for instance by pedalling very fast or choosing a circuit with a lots of uphills. You could also do longer rides, for instance replace 1 hour of running with 1.5 hour of cycling.

[t.parker]

It seems to be so that running is more efficient that cycling and lets burn more calories than cycling but with Fitbit in my case the issue was related to bad quality HR readings which wasn't accurate and was recording heartbeat lower by 20 to even 50 bpm than other sensors I used (cheststrap, other more accurate OHR). Lower HR will result with lower number of calories burnt. I could never get HR readings accurate for cycling. I believe the bad readings could be caused by shaky ride, uneven surface or wrist motion. Impossible to fix.

[emili]

@Vickygirl  compare your HR during running, cross training and biking. That will tell you what you need to know. If your HR is lowest during biking- that is why your calorie burn is lowest. It actually makes sense. I am not a bike rider, but with walking or running whether you are are up hill, down hill or flat the effort is still greater than coasting while on a bike or not full on pedaling. So, in my opinion, it is actually right.