I don't understand why my mobile phone is better.

[Orson1981]

I cycle, not well, but I'm getting better.  All I wanted with my fitbit surge was for the GPS to track my route and the heartrate monitor to help me gauge my workout.  I don't understand why, with a GPS unit on my wrist, I have to also carry around my mobile phone to track my route.  Which I then have to enter manually into the fitbit dash board.

If the issue was, the fitbit has no way of determining how many calories I burn while cycling, fine.  However, the fact is, fitbit estimate caloric burn when you enter your cycling workout manually.  If it can do this when I enter it manually, then there is no reason it can't do the same thing automatically.  Instead of making me enter the time I start, record the time I press start.  Instead of making me enter how long I rode, record how long until I pressed stop.  Instead of making me enter the distance I've read off of my mobile GPS, use your own GPS!

In the end, I get it, not a huge issue, but, I paid a lot of money for this thing, I want it to have simple usability features.  Also, cycling is my primary mode of transportation, it isn't a workout, it is a comute.  I don't always remember what time I started, I'm focused on the day ahead of me.

After all the build up and excitment waiting for my surge to arrive, I'm a little dissapointed.  Anyone have any suggestions about how to get around this?  News of when this feature might be added?

[Heybales]

---

@Orson1981 wrote:

I cycle, not well, but I'm getting better.  All I wanted with my fitbit surge was for the GPS to track my route and the heartrate monitor to help me gauge my workout.  I don't understand why, with a GPS unit on my wrist, I have to also carry around my mobile phone to track my route.  Which I then have to enter manually into the fitbit dash board.

If the issue was, the fitbit has no way of determining how many calories I burn while cycling, fine.  However, the fact is, fitbit estimate caloric burn when you enter your cycling workout manually.  If it can do this when I enter it manually, then there is no reason it can't do the same thing automatically.  Instead of making me enter the time I start, record the time I press start.  Instead of making me enter how long I rode, record how long until I pressed stop.  Instead of making me enter the distance I've read off of my mobile GPS, use your own GPS!

In the end, I get it, not a huge issue, but, I paid a lot of money for this thing, I want it to have simple usability features.  Also, cycling is my primary mode of transportation, it isn't a workout, it is a comute.  I don't always remember what time I started, I'm focused on the day ahead of me.

After all the build up and excitment waiting for my surge to arrive, I'm a little dissapointed.  Anyone have any suggestions about how to get around this?  News of when this feature might be added?

---

Why are you manually entering a workout that is already included in your daily stats?

or why do you think you have to?

or why do you think it's not?

That activity record from hitting the button merely shows you the stats for that block of time, from the daily stats it's contained within.

Pretty sure you are misunderstanding what's going on - thinking you must do more when you don't have to.

[Orson1981]

Its very likely I'm misunderstanding what is going on. I assumed they used some different algorthim to determine calories burned while cycling vs. when walking or running.  Are you saying that calories burned is solely a function of heart rate and inputed body stats?

BTW thanks for the reply.

[Heybales]

---

@Orson1981 wrote:

Its very likely I'm misunderstanding what is going on. I assumed they used some different algorthim to determine calories burned while cycling vs. when walking or running.  Are you saying that calories burned is solely a function of heart rate and inputed body stats?

BTW thanks for the reply.

---

If the HRM is being used, and with enough steps seen and high enough HR it is, then the calorie burn is based on HR.

That burn per HR doesn't vary too much for the lower body stuff, upper yes, so like swimming would be off. Because then you'd reach HR XYZ using all these smaller muscles, which means they are working really hard, burning more calories, compared to reaching same HR with bigger leg muscles.

Usually what happens though, you can't reach the same HR using upper body.

But lower, no problem, between different exercises.

And even the non-HR devices don't have anything specific for biking. The devices steps, usually only half the steps actually, tries to figure distance and assign a normal walking/running calorie burn - and that is very wrong too.

Now that is the case for manually logging a non-step activity.

Now, accuracy of HRM is a whole other story. The formula is only valid for steady-state aerobic with same HR for 2-4 minutes. That's when there is the only connection between calorie burn and HR.

Anaerobic like lifting and sprints/intervals is wrong, besides those being totally moving HR.

Like wise anything under aerobic exercise of about 90 bpm, so normal activity.

Besides that, assumptions are made and calculated for some key stats that are required to calc calories, and you may be no where near the averages.

[CDeb]

One of the reasons I got my Surge was for cycling activity tracking. Boy, am I dissapointed that I can't tell the Surge I am going cycling like I can with running, hiking or walking.

[Heybales]

---

@CDeb wrote:

One of the reasons I got my Surge was for cycling activity tracking. Boy, am I dissapointed that I can't tell the Surge I am going cycling like I can with running, hiking or walking.

---

You starting an activity so it uses the HRM?

Is the HR correct?

Then it really doesn't matter if the activity gets tagged as biking, the calorie burn is still based on HR, just like the others would.

The only difference is the NAME of the activity, running, walking, biking, ect.

And actually, you can preload whatever exercises you are likely to do, so they are named correctly, and pick the right one.

Calorie burn will be the same - name will be different so you don't have to manually correct it.

Then again - you may want to edit it to be more specific anyway, listing a route you did for instance, or other details in the notes, for future review and compare.

[CDeb]

It does matter...The GPS map for route, pace, duration, etc are all functions of a good exercise tracking system. It is not just about the HR. Just choosing exercise and tracking the HR is not sufficient for the avid cyclist.

[Heybales]

---

@CDeb wrote:

It does matter...The GPS map for route, pace, duration, etc are all functions of a good exercise tracking system. It is not just about the HR. Just choosing exercise and tracking the HR is not sufficient for the avid cyclist.

---

oh yeah, totally wrong tool for that.

Just like not really a useful tool I'd suggest for avid runner either. I'd never attempt to use it for my running stats and info, not enough there.

Fitbit doesn't even have the good exercise tracking you are talking about for easy comparison.

Get a better device and SportTracks if you really want to look at your data for comparison down the road, and for current training abilities.

The tool and site are mainly about the other 23 hrs in the day - not the workout.

They have added these new devices to try to address that other hour better though of the workout.

But there's a reason why they just sync with sites and apps that handle the workout aspect better - they know they are lacking in comparison, and aren't likely to improve it.

Just like their food database.

[CDeb]

I am a runner too. The Surge does work well for tracking running and giving me the stats I want. I am just desiring the same functionality for cycling. I do hear that it is coming...

[Ozzie65]

Hi @Orson1981 - According to recent Fitbit press releases, support for GPS in a cycling mode is coming soon. Apparently within the next month.

~~ Ozzie

[josephz2va]

One thing you can try, but I doubt it'll fit over your ankle. Worth a shot.

The reason it doesn't work on the cycle at the moment is because your arms and body don't move on a bicycle. Despite the commercial for Fitbit having you riding on a Spinning Bike.

[Heybales]

---

@josephz2va wrote:

One thing you can try, but I doubt it'll fit over your ankle. Worth a shot.

The reason it doesn't work on the cycle at the moment is because your arms and body don't move on a bicycle. Despite the commercial for Fitbit having you riding on a Spinning Bike.

---

It would be interesting if you could discern from the commercial what device they are wearing.

I wouldn't be surprised if the newer HR devices weren't available for filming then, which would be correct for biking, and you could tell it's a normal wrist device, which wouldn't be correct.

Because I did see one with outdoor biking too.

[Orson1981]

Thanks everyone for the replies.  The lack of the GPS while cycling is a major dissapointment for me, but it doesn't actually impact  my use of the device now that I know how it works a little better.  Truthfully, I'm almost sold on the Amiigo because of all its bells and whisles.  Sure the Amiigo doesn't have a GPS, but if I'm cycling neither does the Surge, plus the Amiigo promises a host of other tools. 

As someone earlier pointed out, Fitbit might add the ability to tag a GPS session with the word "cycling" in the near future.  I will probably hold off on any other purchase till I can fiddle with that feature.

[Heybales]

---

@Ozzie65 wrote:

Hi @Orson1981 - According to recent Fitbit press releases, support for GPS in a cycling mode is coming soon. Apparently within the next month.

~~ Ozzie

---

That should be interesting to what extent they get in to.

My main screen on Garmin is cadence, HR, distance, and speed. 2nd used screen is avgHR, avg Speed, time of workout, max speed.

Cadence with HR is most viewed stats I'd say. I don't see them getting cadence. Others should be possible.

But I also wouldn't enjoy twisting my wrist around to view the stats as much as I actually glance at them. Since HR only available on wrist, can't mount it easier.

Is the sync to the mobile for those things the same speed as the reading on the device, so you can watch it on bigger screen?