Unusually low calories when tracking cycling

[ninjalot]

Anyone else tracked cycling using there Sense? Fitbit is reporting unusually low calories for bike rides for me. I've tried suggestions in other threads, like wearing the watch higher. But that being said, even if the HR is inaccurate, the calories burned is less than what I'd burn standing up for the same period of time. @Fitbit any bugs being worked on related to this?

[ninjalot]

If it helps, here's a screenshot of my last cycling session:

[Rich_Laue]

@ninjalot users are aware of an accuracy problem with heart rate and the latest firmware. We also know the Heart Rate is a big factor in determining calories burnt v

[ninjalot]

@Rich_Lauejust to clarify, are you also experiencing unusually low calories on the Sense too?

Moving a bike over a given distance/speed/travel time, will consume at least a certain amount of energy. And 68 kcal is impossibly low for my ride above. A 30-minute walk with Sense gives me 4-times as many calories with lower heart rate than above, which is unusually high.

If you're suggesting that an inaccurate heart rate can make cycling calories lower but walking calories higher, that sounds extremely strange. The calories burned formula/model should definitely not rely on heart rate so much if it that can happen, hope they will look into that too

[Rich_Laue]

Can't say, I've never worried about calories. 

[ninjalot]

Lol, thanks for your help. Hope to hear from people who are familiar with the problem

[SenseFeedback]

I found that my Fitbit Sense shows more calories walking half a mile vs riding my bike 18 miles. Not sure what is going on. I don't think I trust the numbers.

[MattJ71]

The calorie burn for cycling is way too low in my experience, by half. Based on other accepted calculations, a 1000 calorie ride only comes in at 500 calories on the Sense. 

Actually, walking and cycling are about the same burn on the Sense, which is completely ridiculous. 

It's an issue with the algorithm for sure. Whatever the Sense records, you'll be safe to double it. 

[SunsetRunner]

There’s a huge difference between the “normal” tracker and when you turn on the GPS for cycling. I just did a pretty intense 40 min bike ride on normal mode and it said 200 calories (!), but in GPS “exercises” mode it would have been 500 calories at least. I think without the GPS turned on it just doesn’t track heart rate properly? 

[MarkMM]

@SunsetRunner I don't remember there being a difference, and there shouldn't be a difference. Heart rate has nothing to do with GPS. Can you post screen screen shots of a 300 calorie difference between GPS on and off doing the same ride?

[SaraOn2Wheels]

I've been tracking with my GPS tracking it as an exercise bike ride, and my calories per min are lower when riding than biking. I just biked to work - 3.77 miles, 24 mins, elevation gain 370 ft. (not terrible, but uphill almost the whole way) with extra weight (clothes, toiletries, computer, lunch,etc). Still came out 1 cal per min less than a walk I took Wed night at  normal casual pace, flat terrain, carrying nothing but phone/keys. Something is definitely off.