Helllllppp

2»

Replies

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    JPLambertski wrote: »
    I just wanted to say thank you to all the commenters here and to JennB629 for starting this thread. My wife and I are both struggling with this same issue: according to our diaries, we should lost plenty by now and we're going nowhere. We have a digital scale but only use it in those rare circumstances where there's no easy way to measure what we're eating more conveniently. For the next month I'm going to use the scale religiously and see what happens. Thanks again!

    Keep us posted!
  • blkandwhite77
    blkandwhite77 Posts: 281 Member
    Measuring cup = pack as much as you can in the darn cup lol
    Weighing = you know exactly how much your eating and can't be off

    I've seen a huge difference in my portion sizes from weighing vs measuring
  • blkandwhite77
    blkandwhite77 Posts: 281 Member
    How far are u walking? When I walk 3.1 miles I burn about 160/180 calories although this app shows it at double that so I only eat back half what the app shows I burn. I'm curious how far ur walking that you think you are burning that many calories a day walking
  • FGTisme
    FGTisme Posts: 87 Member
    You mentioned that you are burning 400-600 calories from walking. Are you adding this in your total of calories that you eat each day? If so, it could be throwing you off, in addition to eating more than you think you are.

    I use a cross country ski machine and my heart rate monitor will show a 400 calorie burn for every 45-60 minutes, depending on how hard I am working. Walking an hour was usually only around 200.

    If you are using MFP for your estimated calorie burn, it is notorious for being overinflated. 200-400 calories a day off could easily stall your weight loss.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    Can you open your diary?
  • JennB629
    JennB629 Posts: 54 Member
    FGTisme wrote: »
    You mentioned that you are burning 400-600 calories from walking. Are you adding this in your total of calories that you eat each day? If so, it could be throwing you off, in addition to eating more than you think you are.

    I use a cross country ski machine and my heart rate monitor will show a 400 calorie burn for every 45-60 minutes, depending on how hard I am working. Walking an hour was usually only around 200.

    If you are using MFP for your estimated calorie burn, it is notorious for being overinflated. 200-400 calories a day off could easily stall your weight loss.

    I use a polar watch, unless I'm at the gym on equipment.
  • JennB629
    JennB629 Posts: 54 Member
    blkandwhite77 wrote: »
    How far are u walking? When I walk 3.1 miles I burn about 160/180 calories although this app shows it at double that so I only eat back half what the app shows I burn. I'm curious how far ur walking that you think you are burning that many calories a day walking

    I use a polar watch that tells me the calories as I'm walking. Some days I walk 2 miles, the other day I walked 5 miles.
  • bwogilvie
    bwogilvie Posts: 2,130 Member
    edited October 2015
    JennB629 wrote: »
    I use a polar watch, unless I'm at the gym on equipment.

    HRMs really aren't that accurate for light exercise like walking. They're best for steady-state, moderate to intense cardio activity, like brisk bicycling, running, rowing, cross-country skiing, etc.

    Even then they aren't necessarily accurate at assessing calories burned. One study of the Polar F6 showed that, even calibrated with subjects' actual VO2max and HRmax, it overestimated energy expenditure by 27% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21178923). An earlier study showed that the Polar S410 overestimated energy expenditure in women by 12% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15292754). Another study found that the Polar S810i overestimated expenditure when exercising lightly but not moderately (http://www.jssm.org/vol9/n3/21/v9n3-21abst.php). The research seems to suggest that HRMs are less accurate for women than they are for men.

    I'd take the Polar with a grain of salt. A couple years ago my wife and I went out for a 38-mile bike ride. My Garmin GPS/HRM (Edge 800) estimated that I burned 999 calories. Her Polar claimed over 1700. Since I weigh more than her, she should have burned less than me. My Edge's estimates match pretty well with my actual weight loss, so my conclusion is that her Polar was overestimating by at least 70%. One factor is that her heart rate tends to be fairly high even at rest, so when she exercises, the Polar probably "thinks" she is working harder than she is.

    After all, the only thing a HRM measures is your heartbeat. Everything else is an estimate based on formulas that may not apply in any individual case. One reason my Edge 800 is more accurate is that its calorie count also takes into account how fast I am cycling and whether I am going uphill or downhill.
  • JennB629
    JennB629 Posts: 54 Member
    bwogilvie wrote: »
    JennB629 wrote: »
    I use a polar watch, unless I'm at the gym on equipment.

    HRMs really aren't that accurate for light exercise like walking. They're best for steady-state, moderate to intense cardio activity, like brisk bicycling, running, rowing, cross-country skiing, etc.

    Even then they aren't necessarily accurate at assessing calories burned. One study of the Polar F6 showed that, even calibrated with subjects' actual VO2max and HRmax, it overestimated energy expenditure by 27% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21178923). An earlier study showed that the Polar S410 overestimated energy expenditure in women by 12% (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15292754). Another study found that the Polar S810i overestimated expenditure when exercising lightly but not moderately (http://www.jssm.org/vol9/n3/21/v9n3-21abst.php). The research seems to suggest that HRMs are less accurate for women than they are for men.

    I'd take the Polar with a grain of salt. A couple years ago my wife and I went out for a 38-mile bike ride. My Garmin GPS/HRM (Edge 800) estimated that I burned 999 calories. Her Polar claimed over 1700. Since I weigh more than her, she should have burned less than me. My Edge's estimates match pretty well with my actual weight loss, so my conclusion is that her Polar was overestimating by at least 70%. One factor is that her heart rate tends to be fairly high even at rest, so when she exercises, the Polar probably "thinks" she is working harder than she is.

    After all, the only thing a HRM measures is your heartbeat. Everything else is an estimate based on formulas that may not apply in any individual case. One reason my Edge 800 is more accurate is that its calorie count also takes into account how fast I am cycling and whether I am going uphill or downhill.


    Thanks. I usually am up & down hill, brisk walking while pushing a stroller.

Categories