Exercising while sick

heybales

jelleigh wrote: »

Good call everyone. Decided to rest it out and am feeling a lot better today. Might still try to hit the gym tonight but will see if I feel like I have the energy for it. Otherwise I will just resume my normal schedule tomorrow .



Ok just want to clarify on the Fitbit thing - @vismal your link is showing how off the Fitbit numbers are and @heybales you're saying that study used default values (I'm assuming you mean it didn't plug in each person's stats?) which was why they got such an incorrect reading? Is that the summary?

I know I shouldn't expect my Fitbit to give me some sort of scientifically accurate reading - I usually just use it as a guideline.

No, they used the personal stats - and totally left it at that.

No use of the adjustments for sensitivity if the step counts weren't accurate.
No adjustment of the stride length if the distance was found inaccurate.
No manual logging of some workouts that should be.
No waiting 2 weeks for the HR-based types to get to know person prior to starting the logging to compare burn rates.

Besides - the UP TO 27% off thing was ONLY during exercise. And compared to the daily calorie burn (which is NOT based on HR) - how many calories are coming from exercise?

Let's say avg woman and 2000 daily calorie burn sedenatry, exercise is extra.
1 hr cardio workout really burns 300 cal, but device says 27% higher at 381.

Daily burn 2300 compared to 2381 - a daily difference of 3.4%.

You'll find more inaccuracy in nutrition labels.

jelleigh

heybales wrote: »

jelleigh wrote: »

Good call everyone. Decided to rest it out and am feeling a lot better today. Might still try to hit the gym tonight but will see if I feel like I have the energy for it. Otherwise I will just resume my normal schedule tomorrow .



Ok just want to clarify on the Fitbit thing - @vismal your link is showing how off the Fitbit numbers are and @heybales you're saying that study used default values (I'm assuming you mean it didn't plug in each person's stats?) which was why they got such an incorrect reading? Is that the summary?

I know I shouldn't expect my Fitbit to give me some sort of scientifically accurate reading - I usually just use it as a guideline.

No, they used the personal stats - and totally left it at that.

No use of the adjustments for sensitivity if the step counts weren't accurate.
No adjustment of the stride length if the distance was found inaccurate.
No manual logging of some workouts that should be.
No waiting 2 weeks for the HR-based types to get to know person prior to starting the logging to compare burn rates.

Besides - the UP TO 27% off thing was ONLY during exercise. And compared to the daily calorie burn (which is NOT based on HR) - how many calories are coming from exercise?

Let's say avg woman and 2000 daily calorie burn sedenatry, exercise is extra.
1 hr cardio workout really burns 300 cal, but device says 27% higher at 381.

Daily burn 2300 compared to 2381 - a daily difference of 3.4%.

You'll find more inaccuracy in nutrition labels.

Makes sense. I've read they aren't that accurate for actual workouts but are ok for day to day stuff. Since i do almost no exercise outside this new SL routine (which by nature doesn't seem to impact my calories by much) it's only tracking increased step counts from days where I have heavier walking. It *seems* to be pretty accurate so far (the fever day with high calorie burn was the first oddity). Either way, it's helped me be more conscious of moving etc.

heybales

Now lifting is one where you can improve the tool.

HR-based calorie burn for anaerobic and HR constantly changing = inflated.

Now, if it's only 40 min 3 x weekly - big whoop in the scheme of things.

But merely logging it on Fitbit (and that has been fixed now) as Weights will correct that - still small calorie burn compared to cardio, but still, more accurate, if not stressful to log it.

SezxyStef

heybales wrote: »

Now lifting is one where you can improve the tool.

HR-based calorie burn for anaerobic and HR constantly changing = inflated.

Now, if it's only 40 min 3 x weekly - big whoop in the scheme of things.

But merely logging it on Fitbit (and that has been fixed now) as Weights will correct that - still small calorie burn compared to cardio, but still, more accurate, if not stressful to log it.

I use the weight lifting function on my Charge2...for 10mins (that's what mine takes) about 42 calories...that includes rest periods too...is that accurate? I don't know but I keep track regardless.

FatWithFatness

Don't.

marelthu

If you're achy then it's probably the flu.

rickiimarieee

I would definitely not work out. I have been sick with bronchitis, sinusitis and pneumonia. I can promise you for the last week I have not worked out at all. Plus you don't want to take those germs and sickness to the gym if you go there. You don't want to give anyone that! But I have literally been resting, and that's what you should do. Your body needs the rest! You'll probably make yourself feel worse if you work out.

heybales

SezxyStef wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

Now lifting is one where you can improve the tool.

HR-based calorie burn for anaerobic and HR constantly changing = inflated.

Now, if it's only 40 min 3 x weekly - big whoop in the scheme of things.

But merely logging it on Fitbit (and that has been fixed now) as Weights will correct that - still small calorie burn compared to cardio, but still, more accurate, if not stressful to log it.

I use the weight lifting function on my Charge2...for 10mins (that's what mine takes) about 42 calories...that includes rest periods too...is that accurate? I don't know but I keep track regardless.

Those selections are merely to give a different text label to the workout for easier review. (or at least used to be)
It changes nothing as to how calorie burn is calculated. (or at least used to be)

But that is low enough I'm curious if they have now changed their method - because all it would take is to select the workout type, some of them use the database rate of burn rather than HR, and just apply it to the minutes done.
That would be the smarter way to do some of the workouts.
Like intervals and running/walking would actually be more potential for accuracy to revert to step-based calorie burn for distance.

Or, it could be the rare instance where the avgHR seen was low enough to give that low of calorie burn. That can happen too.

If you are curious enough (and I know I am) - if you note the avgHR seen during the lifting workout, and go find a true cardio workout of close to the same avgHR, and see what that given rate of burn is for 10 min then.

That was the easy test done when these units first came out. I had several curious about it too and they tested the different models. They all used the same HR-based calorie burn formula, no difference.

But software update could change that - it would be good to know.

Thanks if up to it.

SezxyStef

heybales wrote: »

SezxyStef wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

Now lifting is one where you can improve the tool.

HR-based calorie burn for anaerobic and HR constantly changing = inflated.

Now, if it's only 40 min 3 x weekly - big whoop in the scheme of things.

But merely logging it on Fitbit (and that has been fixed now) as Weights will correct that - still small calorie burn compared to cardio, but still, more accurate, if not stressful to log it.

I use the weight lifting function on my Charge2...for 10mins (that's what mine takes) about 42 calories...that includes rest periods too...is that accurate? I don't know but I keep track regardless.

Those selections are merely to give a different text label to the workout for easier review. (or at least used to be)
It changes nothing as to how calorie burn is calculated. (or at least used to be)

But that is low enough I'm curious if they have now changed their method - because all it would take is to select the workout type, some of them use the database rate of burn rather than HR, and just apply it to the minutes done.
That would be the smarter way to do some of the workouts.
Like intervals and running/walking would actually be more potential for accuracy to revert to step-based calorie burn for distance.

Or, it could be the rare instance where the avgHR seen was low enough to give that low of calorie burn. That can happen too.

If you are curious enough (and I know I am) - if you note the avgHR seen during the lifting workout, and go find a true cardio workout of close to the same avgHR, and see what that given rate of burn is for 10 min then.

That was the easy test done when these units first came out. I had several curious about it too and they tested the different models. They all used the same HR-based calorie burn formula, no difference.

But software update could change that - it would be good to know.

Thanks if up to it.

Sure I can do that.

I will be lifting for the next two days and I can do two 10 min cardio sessions easy enough.

Today is bench day and tomorrow is squat day so good reference for upper and lower...I will report back here on Friday.

lilithsrose

I'd suggest resting and maybe just doing a small workout at home if you feel the need. Something less strenuous like yoga would be best. No one wants your germs if you're sick, plus your body needs time to recover. You won't lose much progress. Hope you feel better soon!

SezxyStef

heybales wrote: »

SezxyStef wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

Now lifting is one where you can improve the tool.

HR-based calorie burn for anaerobic and HR constantly changing = inflated.

Now, if it's only 40 min 3 x weekly - big whoop in the scheme of things.

But merely logging it on Fitbit (and that has been fixed now) as Weights will correct that - still small calorie burn compared to cardio, but still, more accurate, if not stressful to log it.

I use the weight lifting function on my Charge2...for 10mins (that's what mine takes) about 42 calories...that includes rest periods too...is that accurate? I don't know but I keep track regardless.

Those selections are merely to give a different text label to the workout for easier review. (or at least used to be)
It changes nothing as to how calorie burn is calculated. (or at least used to be)

But that is low enough I'm curious if they have now changed their method - because all it would take is to select the workout type, some of them use the database rate of burn rather than HR, and just apply it to the minutes done.
That would be the smarter way to do some of the workouts.
Like intervals and running/walking would actually be more potential for accuracy to revert to step-based calorie burn for distance.

Or, it could be the rare instance where the avgHR seen was low enough to give that low of calorie burn. That can happen too.

If you are curious enough (and I know I am) - if you note the avgHR seen during the lifting workout, and go find a true cardio workout of close to the same avgHR, and see what that given rate of burn is for 10 min then.

That was the easy test done when these units first came out. I had several curious about it too and they tested the different models. They all used the same HR-based calorie burn formula, no difference.

But software update could change that - it would be good to know.

Thanks if up to it.

Got a little bit smarter...looked at my history and here is what I found

heybales

Thank you!
There we go, heavy lifting is about the same calories as walking (about 3.5 MET which is about 3.3 mph equivalent), though avgHR will be higher.

So they have tweaked it - great to know.
Appears it's still tied to HR somehow though, because it's not strictly time-based, but at least it's down where it should be.

That simplifies recommendation to do the activity record merely to get the start/end time, and then log your own workout.
If you have the Fitbit that allows selecting the workout type - using Weight Lifting is fine.