Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
 RANDYWA5UFH Posts: 2 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. Tip WA5UFH
 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 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.
 RANDYWA5UFH Posts: 2 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? Tip
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