|
|
|
Next: Walking - Calories: Calories burned climbing stairs
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Aug 16, 2004
Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:27 pm
Post subject: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate?
Archived from groups: misc>fitness>walking (more info?)
|
|
|
I purchased a treadmill to start walking daily. I am FANTASTICALLY
overweight, I always have been. Grossly Obese is more accurate.
Anyway, based on the settings on mySports Instrument heart rate
monitor (watch and chest strap) that I entered my height and weight
and age into, After half an hour on the treadmill around 2.2 miles per
hour it says I have burned abour 1500 calories. Not sure if I can
trust that I made sure I walked a little over a full mile. (I just got
started yesterday, walked .75 miles total and the watch says I burned
around 1200 calories.)
Do you think this ia even close to accurate? I am VERY overweight and
walked at a good firm rate, no leaning no slowing no pausing no
stopping.
I am not going to be deterred if it's not even half that burned, I
just wondered. It's amazing how good you feel just from a nice brisk
walk!
D |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Feb 19, 2004
Posts: 92
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:27 pm
Post subject: Re: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Princess Daisy <Localgod DeleteThis @antisocial.com> wrote:
> I purchased a treadmill to start walking daily. I am FANTASTICALLY
> overweight, I always have been. Grossly Obese is more accurate.
First, Big Congrats! on getting started with controlling
your weight problem. Good luck!
I firmly believe that moderate walking daily will be a big
first step. No pun intended, honest! Well, maybe  .
But if you are truly "grossly obese", I hope you are doing
this under professional supervision. And I hope you know
that exercise is only half of the solution.
That said ....
> Anyway, based on the settings on mySports Instrument heart rate
> monitor (watch and chest strap) that I entered my height and weight
> and age into, After half an hour on the treadmill around 2.2 miles
> per hour it says I have burned abour 1500 calories.
> [...]
> Do you think this ia even close to accurate?
Truthfully, not likely. As you may know, calories
burned cannot be determined directly from HR, height,
weight, and age. (And I hope you also entered gender.)
The HRM relies on formulas that are based on statistical
studies. The accuracy of the measurement depends on how
closely you match the sample populations. Probably not
very closely, if you are truly "grossly obese".
But this is true in general as well. You might be
particularly interested in a reponse from a Sport
Instrument distributor posted on Apr 29, 2004 9:24 AM at
http://forums.runnersworld.com/thread.jspa?threadID=175758&tstart=15.
The SI rep states: "[A]ll calorie counters, heart rate
based or otherwise, tend to all be highly inaccurate.
The BEST have an absolute accuracy of plus or minus 30-40%."
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that statement. I am
suspicious of the knowledge of the SI rep. But I do think
that the SI rep is probably "in the ballpark".
But here's the good news: you might be burning even more
calories, if you are truly "grossly obese".
Don't let that go to you head. No, it does not mean that
you can eat more calories for a given target calorie
deficit (difference between consumption and expenditure).
> I am not going to be deterred if it's not even half that burned
The best (affordable) way that I know of to determine
calorie deficit is to monitor percentage body fat over
time. In your case, you might have to settle for
monitoring weight until you are no longer "grossly"
obese.
> It's amazing how good you feel just from a nice brisk walk!
I'm sure some grunt will say that 2.2 MPH is not a "brisk"
walk. Don't listen to them! It's all relative. If you
are truly "grossly obese", 2.2 MPH might indeed be a very
"brisk" walk for you. Great job!
The point is: don't overdo it. If you are "grossly
obese", you need to pay special care to avoid straining
things -- and one muscle, particular: the heart.
I hope you know that the max heart rate formulas are
also determined from statistical studies. The same is
true of all methods of measuring percent body fat
(except dissection ;->). Thus, none are accurate, and
that is probably even more true for the "grossly obese".
The key is to listen closely to your body, correlating
the objective measurements and using them only as guides
and measures of relative change. And listen to your
physician or other professional who should be monitoring
your progress closely.
Keep up the good work! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 31, 2003
Posts: 73
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 9:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Princess Daisy" <Localgod.DeleteThis@antisocial.com> wrote in message
news:6ff1i0lkn91pb1p3bq7c0ialt30kgk7l99@4ax.com...
> started yesterday, walked .75 miles total and the watch says I burned
around 1200 calories.)
>
> Do you think this ia even close to accurate? I am VERY overweight and
walked at a good firm rate, no leaning no slowing no pausing no stopping.
>
No, I don't think it's even close.
The usual "calculation" that I make starts with the "100 cal/mile" for the
typical 150lb man and extrapolates from there. I think your math must be
better than the watch's.
> I am not going to be deterred if it's not even half that burned, I just
wondered. It's amazing how good you feel just from a nice brisk walk!
>
Good for you! And yes, it does feel good.
Pretty soon (but don't overdo it too soon too fast...) you'll be going
faster, longer, on an incline, etc. and feeling fantastic, not to mention
proud of yourself (with good reason).
I started on a treadmill, walking, and progressed from there. I was "only"
overweight, but the exercise really was essential in my weight loss (not to
mention diabetes control, which is what really made me get religion on
sticking with the program) as well as making me feel good. Some days I
didn't feel good but started anyway -- I didn't always feel better, and
sometimes stopped sooner than planned &/or went way slower or easier, but I
never felt worse after a workout (or even a wimp-out). I switched to
outdoors after my dog died. Now I'm running races from 3k to 10k so far, and
planning a 10 miler this fall.
So keep at it, you don't know where it will take you!
Best wishes.
bj >> Stay informed about: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 04, 2004
Posts: 10
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:11 am
Post subject: Re: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Princess Daisy" <Localgod DeleteThis @antisocial.com> wrote in message
news:6ff1i0lkn91pb1p3bq7c0ialt30kgk7l99@4ax.com...
> I purchased a treadmill to start walking daily. I am FANTASTICALLY
> overweight, I always have been. Grossly Obese is more accurate.
> Anyway, based on the settings on mySports Instrument heart rate
> monitor (watch and chest strap) that I entered my height and weight
> and age into, After half an hour on the treadmill around 2.2 miles per
> hour it says I have burned abour 1500 calories.
Try the www.fitday.com site, you can enter various information to
show calories burned for various activities. (Based on time and
your personal information.) Might be a good "Second opinion"
for the data supplied by equipment.
Pete >> Stay informed about: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 16, 2004
Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:50 pm
Post subject: Re: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:32:27 GMT, "bj" <bjones44 DeleteThis @bellatlantic.net>
wrote:
>"Princess Daisy" <Localgod DeleteThis @antisocial.com> wrote in message
>news:6ff1i0lkn91pb1p3bq7c0ialt30kgk7l99@4ax.com...
>> started yesterday, walked .75 miles total and the watch says I burned
>around 1200 calories.)
>>
>> Do you think this ia even close to accurate? I am VERY overweight and
>walked at a good firm rate, no leaning no slowing no pausing no stopping.
>>
>
>No, I don't think it's even close.
>The usual "calculation" that I make starts with the "100 cal/mile" for the
>typical 150lb man and extrapolates from there. I think your math must be
>better than the watch's.
This is good to know, thanks. I really didn't think it could be
anywhere near the watched suggestion.
>Good for you! And yes, it does feel good.
>
>Pretty soon (but don't overdo it too soon too fast...) you'll be going
>faster, longer, on an incline, etc. and feeling fantastic, not to mention
>proud of yourself (with good reason).
=)
>
>I started on a treadmill, walking, and progressed from there. I was "only"
>overweight, but the exercise really was essential in my weight loss (not to
>mention diabetes control, which is what really made me get religion on
>sticking with the program) as well as making me feel good. Some days I
>didn't feel good but started anyway -- I didn't always feel better, and
>sometimes stopped sooner than planned &/or went way slower or easier, but I
>never felt worse after a workout (or even a wimp-out). I switched to
>outdoors after my dog died. Now I'm running races from 3k to 10k so far, and
>planning a 10 miler this fall.
>So keep at it, you don't know where it will take you!
>Best wishes.
>bj
>
I started out on an elliptical machine, in the beginning I could only
do like 2 minutes, but after a while, then half an hour became easy,
I just thought a treadmill was better because I'd heard everyone say
how beneficial walking was, because they maintained that it tended to
keep your heart rate in the proper "fat burning" percentage, whereas
the elliptical would push me past that. Now of course, I'm hearing
that it's all a myth, and that it doesn't so much matter, so it's
tough to find facts. People will say "oh this has been discussed to
death, go google it" and when you do that, it's just people arguing
and nothing is settled.. In the end, I'm going to stick with the
possibly false 60-80% of maximum heart rate on the treadmill and see
what happens.
Anyway, thanks for the kind words! >> Stay informed about: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 16, 2004
Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 16 Aug 2004 13:02:40 -0700, joeu2004 DeleteThis @hotmail.com (Joe User) wrote:
>Princess Daisy <Localgod DeleteThis @antisocial.com> wrote:
>First, Big Congrats! on getting started with controlling
>your weight problem. Good luck!
>
Thankees
>I firmly believe that moderate walking daily will be a big
>first step. No pun intended, honest! Well, maybe .
>
>But if you are truly "grossly obese", I hope you are doing
>this under professional supervision. And I hope you know
>that exercise is only half of the solution.
>
>That said ....
I'm just walking, I don't think I need supervision, not that I could
get it even if I did. No insurance, no job... I rule. (kidding)
>
>Truthfully, not likely. As you may know, calories
>burned cannot be determined directly from HR, height,
>weight, and age. (And I hope you also entered gender.)
>The HRM relies on formulas that are based on statistical
>studies. The accuracy of the measurement depends on how
>closely you match the sample populations. Probably not
>very closely, if you are truly "grossly obese".
So how do you compute that? it can't be all a guessing game. The
general consensus online seems to be all you have to do is burn more
than you take in, carbs be damned, (although Dr. Sears, creator of
"The Zone" says if your food intake stimulates insulin, you won't burn
fat efficiently. How do you feel about that?) so... how can you tell
what you're burning then? I mean, what does determine calories burned?
Do those 2 thousand dollar metabolism measurer things do that?
>
>But this is true in general as well. You might be
>particularly interested in a reponse from a Sport
>Instrument distributor posted on Apr 29, 2004 9:24 AM at
>http://forums.runnersworld.com/thread.jspa?threadID=175758&tstart=15.
>The SI rep states: "[A]ll calorie counters, heart rate
>based or otherwise, tend to all be highly inaccurate.
>The BEST have an absolute accuracy of plus or minus 30-40%."
>
>I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that statement. I am
>suspicious of the knowledge of the SI rep. But I do think
>that the SI rep is probably "in the ballpark".
>
I wonder why they don't put THAT on the box, LOL.
>But here's the good news: you might be burning even more
>calories, if you are truly "grossly obese".
>
>Don't let that go to you head. No, it does not mean that
>you can eat more calories for a given target calorie
>deficit (difference between consumption and expenditure).
Thats the one bit I've got going on my side, I don't overeat, I'm not
an emotional eater. I've read many studies where people say that all
obese people grossly mislead themselves and others in terms of their
actual dietary habits, but I have many meals of baked chicken breasts
and green beans or salad or normal or smaller size, so yeah. Honestly,
in terms of weight I've been cursed from day one. I'm the ONLY huge
one out of possibly 60-80 family members. they're all skinny. And
diabetic. Odd. I weighed almost 9 pounds at birth (huge in the 70s)
around 95 pounds in kindergarden... 209 in fifth grade.. and this was
with walking to and from school a mile each way, paper routes and
playing with friends, bike riding.. so forth... eating the same foods
in similar or smaller portions as the rest of the thin ones... The
bottom line seems to be that just like there are about 25% of the
population that can eat all day and night and not get fat, there's
another 25% that can gain weight practically thinking of food.
Although my weight has been the same now for almost 10 years.... I
don't lose or gain.. anyway, I'm rambling.
>The best (affordable) way that I know of to determine
>calorie deficit is to monitor percentage body fat over
>time. In your case, you might have to settle for
>monitoring weight until you are no longer "grossly"
>obese.
Why wait? I have a body fat scale.. I'm 44-46% fat, higher in the
morning... or let me guess, are they inaccurate too? basically I
decided to beat this obestiy and bought all the tools I thought would
help.. now I'm thinking I've been taken...
>
>> It's amazing how good you feel just from a nice brisk walk!
>
>I'm sure some grunt will say that 2.2 MPH is not a "brisk"
>walk. Don't listen to them! It's all relative. If you
>are truly "grossly obese", 2.2 MPH might indeed be a very
>"brisk" walk for you. Great job!
Well, my mom weighs half what I weigh and she couldn't do more than 7
minutes at 1.5 mph, so if anyone's got anything to say it wouldn't
bother me. And she's neither really old or sedentary.
>
>The point is: don't overdo it. If you are "grossly
>obese", you need to pay special care to avoid straining
>things -- and one muscle, particular: the heart.
Thats why I bought the heart rate monitor.. formulas be damned about
calories burned, it's at least accurate in telling me what my heart
rate IS... so that's something...
>
>I hope you know that the max heart rate formulas are
>also determined from statistical studies. The same is
>true of all methods of measuring percent body fat
>(except dissection ;->). Thus, none are accurate, and
>that is probably even more true for the "grossly obese".
*sigh*
>
>The key is to listen closely to your body, correlating
>the objective measurements and using them only as guides
>and measures of relative change. And listen to your
>physician or other professional who should be monitoring
>your progress closely.
>
>Keep up the good work!
You've made some great points and I appreciate it.
Thanks a ton! >> Stay informed about: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 16, 2004
Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:11:39 -0400, " Uncle Peter"
<radioconnectionNO.DeleteThis@cox.netSPAM> wrote:
>
>"Princess Daisy" <Localgod.DeleteThis@antisocial.com> wrote in message
>news:6ff1i0lkn91pb1p3bq7c0ialt30kgk7l99@4ax.com...
>> I purchased a treadmill to start walking daily. I am FANTASTICALLY
>> overweight, I always have been. Grossly Obese is more accurate.
>> Anyway, based on the settings on mySports Instrument heart rate
>> monitor (watch and chest strap) that I entered my height and weight
>> and age into, After half an hour on the treadmill around 2.2 miles per
>> hour it says I have burned abour 1500 calories.
>
>Try the www.fitday.com site, you can enter various information to
>show calories burned for various activities. (Based on time and
>your personal information.) Might be a good "Second opinion"
>for the data supplied by equipment.
>
>Pete
>
I'm on it, thanks! >> Stay informed about: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 19, 2004
Posts: 92
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:24 pm
Post subject: Re: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Princess Daisy <Localgod.RemoveThis@antisocial.com> wrote:
> You've made some great points and I appreciate it.
> Thanks a ton!
No pun intended, right? 
> I have a body fat scale.. [....]
> let me guess, are they inaccurate too?
Yes.
> basically I decided to beat this obestiy and
> bought all the tools I thought would help..
Good. I am a strong advocate of using tools to provide
objective metrics.
> now I'm thinking I've been taken...
Not necessarily. If they are used correctly and
consistently, they can be used to show relative
change. And for most devices, the number is
"in the ballpark" for most people.
I draw the line with the calories estimators. IMHO,
the statistical error (+/- 30-40%) is too great to
make the number useful. But they are useful for
comparing the same mode of exercise performed at
different intensity levels, and to a lesser degree,
comparing different modes of exercise in very general
terms.
> So how do you compute that? [...]
> how can you tell what you're burning then?
> I mean, what does determine calories burned?
I don't think there is agreement on the answer.
My answer is: look at the change in %BF over time.
Of course, that presumes that you have an objective
and consistent way to measure %BF.
> >In your case, you might have to settle for monitoring
> >weight until you are no longer "grossly" obese.
>
> Why wait?
When you said "grossly obese", I thought of "morbidly
obese". Many of the %BF procedures do not work well
on the "morbidly obese". I thought you would have to
wait until you lose some body fat.
But in hindsight, you do not mention your dimensions,
your current weight, your age, and your gender
(although we might assume that "Princess Daisy" is
female). So my assumptions were premature.
> The bottom line seems to be that just like there are about 25% of the
> population that can eat all day and night and not get fat, there's
> another 25% that can gain weight practically thinking of food.
Right. So do not be discouraged if you do all this
work, but you do not see major changes in body fat.
There are many other benefits to doing regular exercise
and having a proper diet -- benefits that are especially
important if you are genetically disposed to carrying
more weight.
Eventually, I hope you do work with a medical professional,
and you expand your objective metrics to include blood
analysis that looks at lipids and other factors. This
could reveal other potential explanations for your life-long
weight problem. Some of those problems might deserve
medical attention.
Also, over a long period of time, hopefully will you see
indirect evidence of improvement, such as a lower resting
heart rate, increased energy, and the ability to do more
intense exercise at the same heart rate (or level of
perceived exertion). >> Stay informed about: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:27 pm
Post subject: Re: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
It wasn't a dark and stormy night when Princess Daisy wrote:
> So how do you compute that? it can't be all a guessing game. The
> general consensus online seems to be all you have to do is burn more
> than you take in, carbs be damned, (although Dr. Sears, creator of
> "The Zone" says if your food intake stimulates insulin, you won't burn
> fat efficiently. How do you feel about that?) so... how can you tell
> what you're burning then? I mean, what does determine calories burned?
> Do those 2 thousand dollar metabolism measurer things do that?
Hi, I'm new here and starting walking myself.
I like the explanation given on: http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/
Personally I believe the general energy consumption minus burned energy
idea not the fashionable diets.
<snip>
> >But here's the good news: you might be burning even more
> >calories, if you are truly "grossly obese".
> >
> >Don't let that go to you head. No, it does not mean that
> >you can eat more calories for a given target calorie
> >deficit (difference between consumption and expenditure).
>
> Thats the one bit I've got going on my side, I don't overeat, I'm not
> an emotional eater. I've read many studies where people say that all
> obese people grossly mislead themselves and others in terms of their
> actual dietary habits, but I have many meals of baked chicken breasts
> and green beans or salad or normal or smaller size, so yeah. Honestly,
> in terms of weight I've been cursed from day one. I'm the ONLY huge
> one out of possibly 60-80 family members. they're all skinny. And
> diabetic. Odd. I weighed almost 9 pounds at birth (huge in the 70s)
> around 95 pounds in kindergarden... 209 in fifth grade.. and this was
> with walking to and from school a mile each way, paper routes and
> playing with friends, bike riding.. so forth... eating the same foods
> in similar or smaller portions as the rest of the thin ones... The
> bottom line seems to be that just like there are about 25% of the
> population that can eat all day and night and not get fat, there's
> another 25% that can gain weight practically thinking of food.
> Although my weight has been the same now for almost 10 years.... I
> don't lose or gain.. anyway, I'm rambling.
I used to be the skinny one up to the past few years... I've got a
prolactinoma which was just discovered about 6 months ago which may have
something to do with my weight gain, at the moment I'm not eating any
differently to when I was thin. I really hope the exercise will make a
difference to my weight.
> >The best (affordable) way that I know of to determine
> >calorie deficit is to monitor percentage body fat over
> >time. In your case, you might have to settle for
> >monitoring weight until you are no longer "grossly"
> >obese.
>
> Why wait? I have a body fat scale.. I'm 44-46% fat, higher in the
> morning... or let me guess, are they inaccurate too? basically I
> decided to beat this obestiy and bought all the tools I thought would
> help.. now I'm thinking I've been taken...
I recently signed up for physio-fitness(fitness taught by
physiotherapists) and their scale showed me to be 40% fat... and I'm not
really obese: 20kg overweight at most. I'm wondering how much of that
40% is contained in my er, chest region. I could do with losing a bit of
*that* dead weight!
I didn't time myself for todays walk(my time-sense isn't that great) but
according to my cheapo pedometer(is that the right word?) I:
Walked 2.17 kilometres
Took 3632 steps
Burned 126.8 KCA whatever *that* means
I'm wondering if that looks right, I may need to adjust my step length
(60cm) for the correct distance... maybe it is right though. Oh, the
thing's got a timer too! <duh!>
Sorry about the metric measurements: somehow I couldn't get
www.convert-me.com to work.
Vashti >> Stay informed about: Heart Rate Monitor Watches - Is the Calorie Burn accurate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
