help menu

Join us on the Community Forums!

  • Community Guidelines

    The Fitbit Community is a gathering place for real people who wish to exchange ideas, solutions, tips, techniques, and insight about the Fitbit products and services they love. By joining our Community, you agree to uphold these guidelines, so please take a moment to look them over.

  • Learn the Basics

    Check out our Frequently Asked Questions page for information on Community features, and tips to make the most of your time here.

  • Join the Community!

    Join an existing conversation, or start a new thread to ask your question. Creating your account is completely free, and takes about a minute.

Not finding your answer on the Community Forums?

Cancel
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Logging bike calories - makes no sense!

Replies are disabled for this topic. Start a new one or visit our Help Center.

‎02-29-2016 03:05

‎02-29-2016 03:05

Hi,
Apologies if this has been covered before but I couldn't find it.
I use a stationary bike most days and usually do 10 miles in around 25 - 30 minutes depending how energetic I feel!
Today I took a little longer as I stopped to fiddle with my shoes and put it down as taking 32 minutes and my calories dropped off significantly.
Ive now looked through and it seems the pattern is strange for how many calories are listed for the same distance.
It suggests that for ten miles 25mins - 419 cals, 26 - 436, 27 - 453, 28 - 469, 29 - 486, 30 - 503, 31 -519, 32 - 402, 33 -415 , 34 -427, 35-440..... theres another sharp dip then gradual climb at 40-41 minutes too.
I appreciate there's probably a peak calorie burn based on a balance of duration and intensity but i still feel like this can't be right?
Best Answer
0 Votes
2 REPLIES 2

‎02-29-2016 04:32

‎02-29-2016 04:32

Hi @Sarah01uk. I don't have a problem with those numbers. At one point, the incremental duration of the exercise is offset by the fact that distance is a constant; thus, the longer you take to cover the same distance the lesser the burn. I must commend you on doing 10 miles in 25-30 min. I consider myself an avid cyclist and usually go for 2 hour runs, averaging 14-15 mph. In your case, to achieve 10 miles in such a short time, you'd have to ride at full speed from the get go and for the whole 25-30 min, maintaining an average speed in excess of 20 mph. That's fast, that's really fast. I can take my bike to 20mph but just for a minute, two at the most, as there's no way I could maintain that regimen for a half hour. Are you a pro? Congrats!

TW

Best Answer
0 Votes

‎02-29-2016 07:03

‎02-29-2016 07:03

Hi, thanks so much for your reply. you say the longer you take to cover the same distance the lesser the burn. I completely see this and that's what I had thought but what I don't understand is why the calorie count drops off so suddenly at 32 minutes but then starts to rise again? Even though it's still for the 10 miles. I would think it would continue to go down...
I'm using a stationary bike with fairly low resistance and all on the flat - I'm sure I wouldn't get anywhere near you doing the sort of cycling you do 🙂 thanks though!
I do realise that the calories are quite probably not accurate as such anyway but I am just curious as to the pattern shown...
Best Answer
0 Votes