Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
9/24/12 3:54 P

Deb, thanks I did look at your latest blog post and it did answer all my questions. Thanks !

Thanks to all who have responded.


UNIDENT Posts: 33,498
9/24/12 3:22 P

I don't think they're averaging hills on a stationary bike reading, no ... :)

Randy, please go check out my latest blog. Never use Spark's values for this type of exercise.

SHARONPENNING SparkPoints: (0)
Fitness Minutes: (8,312)
Posts: 550
9/24/12 2:42 P

I think they average the bicycle ride based on up and down hills etc. I think they often over state the calories burned. I got a note saying I was burning too many calories for what I'm eating, but I'm not losing weight that fast. I'm handicapped emoticon and I don't think they take that into account. When I walk, it is very slowly, even if it takes me an hour or more to go 2 miles.

9/24/12 2:22 P

Ok, new to this and I am serious about having good data. When I use the posted data for calories burned using a stationary bike, I see it calculates 74 calories for 5 minutes. I rode my Schwinn for 40 minutes this morning and it indicated a total of 145 calories. So which should I use?

The calculated calories would be 592. That would mean I can reach my weekly target in just a few short days.

Thus I assume the calories burned indicated on my stationary bike is more accurate. I have an elliptical exerciser ordered from Nordic track. It too will give a metered calories burned number for each use. I personally think there should not be that big a difference between these two numbers. (That is 438 calories difference between the estimate methods)

What are others doing?


Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Fitness and Exercise Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
I completely bomb at cardio. 11/13/2016 9:04:36 AM
Nordic Trac 2/11/2016 9:13:23 AM
Fitbit 8/18/2016 6:17:31 PM
Barefoot running 7/12/2016 8:15:52 PM
Distance or speed? 6/16/2016 4:45:30 AM