|
|
Post by kcalburner on May 18, 2007 13:46:44 GMT -5
Hello all:)
Is there anyone knowledgeable about Pedometers vs a Heart Rate Monitor Watch?
And why there is such a big difference in kcal count on both these devices worn at the same time during a one hour walk?
I found there was a 202 kcal difference between them. The Pedometer registered the most kcal burned. Why would this be if the information logged is the same in both devices?
Thank You
:-/ME:)
ME
|
|
|
|
Post by abrannan on May 18, 2007 14:54:24 GMT -5
Well, you are measuring two different things (number of steps taken, vs heart rate), and each devices probably has a different formula for calculating estimated calories burned. Of the two, I'd tend to believe the heart rate monitor more, since it's actually reading the effect of exercise on your body, rather than just a number of steps you take.
But really, any device is only going to be able to give you a vague, general idea of calorie usage, at best.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcalburner on May 18, 2007 15:18:38 GMT -5
Thank you for your reply:)
Those who want to maintain a decent weight and body fat % need to know how many calories we burn right? So we have to trust some sort of method or device???
|
|
|
|
Post by abrannan on May 18, 2007 18:10:01 GMT -5
Not really. Maintaining a basic awareness of how many calories you're eating is a good idea. Lots of people are way underestimating how many calories they eat in a day. But really, all you need to do is eat right, eat in moderation, and get regular amounts of exercise of a variety of types (resistance, high intensity, etc). Do those things, and the weight and body fat % will take care of themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcalburner on May 18, 2007 19:28:03 GMT -5
I agree. I have been a member of a gym for several years. I work very hard. Up to 15 hours per week 5 hrs of which are cardio. I haven't lost weight and have reduced my body fat by a very small percentage. Its extremely discouraging as I've been exercising and walking for many years. I'm not new to this. My food intake does require some modification I must agree lol. But even still, I'm not a big eater of "bad for you foods" I try to eat high protein, low carbs.
Sorry for whinning and thank you again for listening.
|
|
|
|
Post by abrannan on May 18, 2007 21:08:31 GMT -5
Have you tried any high-intensity intervals? (i.e. wind sprints, hill, or stair sprints) Stuff that takes 30 seconds to get you totally winded, with a minute or so rest in between. Repeat for about 10 minutes, and that's your workout (nothing else for about 4 hours). Traditional low to mid intensity Cardio doesn't encourage fat loss at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Briefer, more intense periods of exercise do encourage greater fat loss.
|
|
xstatic
Spam Cop
100 Hours Achieved!! ('06, '07)
Happily Hardcore
Posts: 3,973
|
Post by xstatic on May 19, 2007 7:53:36 GMT -5
That's totally your kick now isn't it? ^_^ You should write a book on it Andrew.  You understand that there is a psychological problem with maintaining that workout routine, don't you? People like me would NEVER be satisfied with 10 min of high intensity workout and believing in it. Even if it were proven.  |
|
|
|
Post by kcalburner on May 20, 2007 18:25:08 GMT -5
lol xstatic..I agree. One hour is what I need to even start to feel the benefits.
abrannan, I have been told by more than one trainer that low intensity does ineed promote fat reduction where high intensity promotes calorie burning and cardio fitness. Which doesn't mean I walk at a snails pace...I get my heart rate up to the calculated low to middle bpm and keep it there for one hour.
Having said that, yes I have tried high/low intensity workouts. I jog for 2 minutes (bpm get up to 144) then walked briskly for 2 min. do that for an hour.
I appreciate your feed back..thank you. I am starting to believe , I'm a lost cause . I need to lose 10 - 15 lbs. I think some of it is muscle tone...(at least I like to think it is)!
|
|
