BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > Articles on the Main Site
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 07-06-2010, 08:04 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default Exercise and Weight/Fat Loss

Part 1 on the main site
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 07-06-2010, 12:03 PM
mle_ii mle_ii is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 376
Default

Thanks for the article Lyle. Looking forward to the second part.

You mentioned walking at a brisk pace isn't burning much if any. And you do mention using a Polar HR monitor as well.

Well I'm wondering why my HR Monitor is so far off of what seems to be estimated by you and even on a site like fitday. I do seem to have a higher max HR than estimated by calculations so perhaps that is throwing the monitor off. I believe it was around 199, though it's been a while since I've gotten it that high.

For example I decided to stay within 140-161 as a HR zone to use. Which is pretty much the 70-80% of what I figured to be my Max Heart Rate. I was at a VERY slow jog or a fast walking pace, about 4.5 MPH, and was at around the top of the range most of the time at 161, average is lower as I spent some time about 10 minutes of it using the Own Zone feature of the HR monitor.

Anyway here are the stats.

Time 1:01:47
4.25 miles
In Zone 47:11
Avg HR 153
Calories/Fat 814/25%

So that's around 13 calories per minute. Why are the calories it's saying I'm burning so high? Am I really burning that much?

I don't use these numbers to figure out how much to eat while dieting as I just use my maintainence (based on calculations) minus a deficit.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 07-06-2010, 01:08 PM
nadfubach nadfubach is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,494
Default

Excellent article Lyle. I can't wait to read the second part.

Makes me feel foolish for getting hung up trying to figure out how many calories I burnt during exercise.
__________________
"Id rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 07-06-2010, 02:02 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Couple of things
1. Bodyweight?
2. 4.5 mph is actually an interesting pace in this regard and may be *part* of what's going on. It's basically right at the threshold of very fast walking and slow jogging and tends to be horribly inefficient for that reason. Which may be why it drove HR so high
3. There is teh issue that Polar is making some gross assumptions about HR and energy expenditure which tend not to be totally correct. Certainly there can be some relationship but consider the difference in work output between

you at 160 HR
Lance armstrong at 160 HR

Lance is probably doing double or triple the energy expenditure as a function of his fitness level. Polar would tend to show an identical caloric expenditure since, so far as I recall, it doesn't let you program fitness into the equation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mle_ii View Post
Thanks for the article Lyle. Looking forward to the second part.

You mentioned walking at a brisk pace isn't burning much if any. And you do mention using a Polar HR monitor as well.

Well I'm wondering why my HR Monitor is so far off of what seems to be estimated by you and even on a site like fitday. I do seem to have a higher max HR than estimated by calculations so perhaps that is throwing the monitor off. I believe it was around 199, though it's been a while since I've gotten it that high.

For example I decided to stay within 140-161 as a HR zone to use. Which is pretty much the 70-80% of what I figured to be my Max Heart Rate. I was at a VERY slow jog or a fast walking pace, about 4.5 MPH, and was at around the top of the range most of the time at 161, average is lower as I spent some time about 10 minutes of it using the Own Zone feature of the HR monitor.

Anyway here are the stats.

Time 1:01:47
4.25 miles
In Zone 47:11
Avg HR 153
Calories/Fat 814/25%

So that's around 13 calories per minute. Why are the calories it's saying I'm burning so high? Am I really burning that much?

I don't use these numbers to figure out how much to eat while dieting as I just use my maintainence (based on calculations) minus a deficit.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 07-06-2010, 04:04 PM
Gary the snail's Avatar
Gary the snail Gary the snail is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 21
Default

spelling error:

"compared to statedy state training"

should be steady
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 07-06-2010, 04:29 PM
mle_ii mle_ii is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 376
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
Couple of things
1. Bodyweight?
2. 4.5 mph is actually an interesting pace in this regard and may be *part* of what's going on. It's basically right at the threshold of very fast walking and slow jogging and tends to be horribly inefficient for that reason. Which may be why it drove HR so high
3. There is teh issue that Polar is making some gross assumptions about HR and energy expenditure which tend not to be totally correct. Certainly there can be some relationship but consider the difference in work output between

you at 160 HR
Lance armstrong at 160 HR

Lance is probably doing double or triple the energy expenditure as a function of his fitness level. Polar would tend to show an identical caloric expenditure since, so far as I recall, it doesn't let you program fitness into the equation.
1) The Polar takes into account my weight, age and sex as does I assume fitday. But yes, comparing it to your values was dumb on my part.
2) Yeah, that speed was strange. I had a heck of a time trying to keep the jogging under 161 for the HR, and it was extreemly slow. The jogging actually felt slower than the fast walking, and I'm guessing it was.
3) Agreed, I guess I don't understand how Polar does the calculations. I'd assumed it use some of the other scores that I used for it. One is a fit test and the other was calculating "Own Zone", though this last test didn't work right for me. Got to a point when I went from the fast walk to a jog and it stopped trying to calculate it and went back to the Aged Based formula. Which is why I just put in my own zone based on Max HR. And the "Fit Test" seemed to be only looking at resting HR over 3 minutes.

What? You don't think I have the same athletic ability as Lance. I'm crushed!!! LOL Yeah, it really makes me wonder what voodoo they're using to do the calculations. Seems like there'd be a way to make it more accurate. Though I suppose it's one of those things that are more interesting than valuable especially in reference to your article.

One other thing that I keep wondering is if my blood volume might be low and thus that's why I have a higher HR at exercise than the average. For a while I was getting dizzy spells quite often when standing up, though I had at the time attributed it to stress. Now at times I see stars but don't get dizzy.

Thank you,
Mike
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 07-06-2010, 04:41 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Got it, thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 07-06-2010, 04:53 PM
mle_ii mle_ii is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 376
Default

Oh and sorry for the off topic on Heart Rate Monitors. After reading your endurance articles I picked up the Daniels Running Formula book and have gotten the heart rate monitor bug again so I'm keeping more track of it and noticing these oddities. Mainly due to me running too hard all the time and not realzing it was probably the wrong thing to do. Somehow I got stuck on the "if it doesn't hurt it's not doing anything" way of exercising and I'm trying to get out of that.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 07-06-2010, 05:47 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

I think it's just an artifact of that particular speed driving your HR to weird places and the polar making vastly incorrect assumptions about how hard you're working. Under other, more normal circumstances, someone your size might get 13 cal/min at an actual intensity that put you at 160 HR. But you just got a screwy workload/HR relationship because of the speed you happened to pick.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 07-06-2010, 05:48 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mle_ii View Post
Oh and sorry for the off topic on Heart Rate Monitors. After reading your endurance articles I picked up the Daniels Running Formula book and have gotten the heart rate monitor bug again so I'm keeping more track of it and noticing these oddities. Mainly due to me running too hard all the time and not realzing it was probably the wrong thing to do. Somehow I got stuck on the "if it doesn't hurt it's not doing anything" way of exercising and I'm trying to get out of that.
Yes, learning to do truly easy training takes time and maturity. Neither of which are any fun. But it's critically important.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.