Anyone out there lost weight WITHOUT a Polar HRM?

sleepytexan

I would add to @sleepytexan response the following:

If your goal is simply to lose weight, I would skip the HRM. You don't need it as a tool. You can count calories, and your scale is the measurement device to gauge your progress.

But a whole lot of people use MyFitnessPal (not MyDietPal) to improve their fitness. This may (or may not) include losing weight. The best measurement device to gauge your progress towards your fitness goals is not a scale. It is a combination that includes bodyfat analysis, resting HR, comparing average heart rates over time for perceived exertion levels, and other performance parameters relating to fitness. In my case, I religiously use one on known, repeatable workouts (bike rides). So I need to time the workout, but also I need to know weather conditions, what I ate that day, wind speed and direction, my body weight, and my average heart rate.

Over time, this data correlates to my relative fitness. I'm not a competitive athlete. Hold it, I do race competitively for fun. I'm not a professional athlete. But I am an athlete, and I do care about quantifying my fitness.

If you are interested (or become interested) in quantifying your fitness, you need an HRM. Otherwise, don't bother.

@sleepytexan is making the assumption that she can do a spin class, dance, etc. once with an HRM, and she will know what her numbers are and they won't change. But if she gets serious about her fitness, and actually becomes more fit, she would find out that she won't burn the same amount of calories for a given workout at the same perceived exertion level, because her body got more efficient at using fuel. It's just how it happens.

My resting heart rate was once in the high 60's. Now its 45. My fitness has improved. The HRM helped me get there. Lance Armstrong had a resting rate of 32. Professional cyclists don't ride without one.

Also wanted to point out that unless my weight changes substantially (and I don't anticipate it would), or I am doing some half-hearted workout (unlikely) there is no reason to expect the amount of calories burned to be significantly different for the same activity during the same timeframe. Becoming more efficient does not alter the amount of calories burned during the activity, it just makes the activity easier to complete.

solpwr

I would add to @sleepytexan response the following:

If your goal is simply to lose weight, I would skip the HRM. You don't need it as a tool. You can count calories, and your scale is the measurement device to gauge your progress.

But a whole lot of people use MyFitnessPal (not MyDietPal) to improve their fitness. This may (or may not) include losing weight. The best measurement device to gauge your progress towards your fitness goals is not a scale. It is a combination that includes bodyfat analysis, resting HR, comparing average heart rates over time for perceived exertion levels, and other performance parameters relating to fitness. In my case, I religiously use one on known, repeatable workouts (bike rides). So I need to time the workout, but also I need to know weather conditions, what I ate that day, wind speed and direction, my body weight, and my average heart rate.

Over time, this data correlates to my relative fitness. I'm not a competitive athlete. Hold it, I do race competitively for fun. I'm not a professional athlete. But I am an athlete, and I do care about quantifying my fitness.

If you are interested (or become interested) in quantifying your fitness, you need an HRM. Otherwise, don't bother.

@sleepytexan is making the assumption that she can do a spin class, dance, etc. once with an HRM, and she will know what her numbers are and they won't change. But if she gets serious about her fitness, and actually becomes more fit, she would find out that she won't burn the same amount of calories for a given workout at the same perceived exertion level, because her body got more efficient at using fuel. It's just how it happens.

My resting heart rate was once in the high 60's. Now its 45. My fitness has improved. The HRM helped me get there. Lance Armstrong had a resting rate of 32. Professional cyclists don't ride without one.

Also wanted to point out that unless my weight changes substantially (and I don't anticipate it would), or I am doing some half-hearted workout (unlikely) there is no reason to expect the amount of calories burned to be significantly different for the same activity during the same timeframe. Becoming more efficient does not alter the amount of calories burned during the activity, it just makes the activity easier to complete.

I beg to differ, at least in my case. One's body becoming more efficient means exactly that; consuming less fuel (measured in calories) for the same level of work performed. My commute in the spring was taking me 72 minutes, HR was 137 average, and calories burned was approx 900. One, it is now very difficult to get my average heart rate that high for an entire hour on my bike without a serious climb in the ride. When I do, on the same ride, I burn 750 calories. Same exertion. Less calories expended. Fitness and efficiency improved. VO2 max in the spring was high 30's. Now it's mid 40's. I am 52 years old.

killagb

I would add to @sleepytexan response the following:

If your goal is simply to lose weight, I would skip the HRM. You don't need it as a tool. You can count calories, and your scale is the measurement device to gauge your progress.

But a whole lot of people use MyFitnessPal (not MyDietPal) to improve their fitness. This may (or may not) include losing weight. The best measurement device to gauge your progress towards your fitness goals is not a scale. It is a combination that includes bodyfat analysis, resting HR, comparing average heart rates over time for perceived exertion levels, and other performance parameters relating to fitness. In my case, I religiously use one on known, repeatable workouts (bike rides). So I need to time the workout, but also I need to know weather conditions, what I ate that day, wind speed and direction, my body weight, and my average heart rate.

Over time, this data correlates to my relative fitness. I'm not a competitive athlete. Hold it, I do race competitively for fun. I'm not a professional athlete. But I am an athlete, and I do care about quantifying my fitness.

If you are interested (or become interested) in quantifying your fitness, you need an HRM. Otherwise, don't bother.

@sleepytexan is making the assumption that she can do a spin class, dance, etc. once with an HRM, and she will know what her numbers are and they won't change. But if she gets serious about her fitness, and actually becomes more fit, she would find out that she won't burn the same amount of calories for a given workout at the same perceived exertion level, because her body got more efficient at using fuel. It's just how it happens.

My resting heart rate was once in the high 60's. Now its 45. My fitness has improved. The HRM helped me get there. Lance Armstrong had a resting rate of 32. Professional cyclists don't ride without one.

Also wanted to point out that unless my weight changes substantially (and I don't anticipate it would), or I am doing some half-hearted workout (unlikely) there is no reason to expect the amount of calories burned to be significantly different for the same activity during the same timeframe. Becoming more efficient does not alter the amount of calories burned during the activity, it just makes the activity easier to complete.

Easier to complete = less effort = less calories burned

This is why people increase exercise intensity over time, to get similar results. The body adapts and becomes stronger and needs more to challenge it calorically over time.

Black_Swan

Me me me! You really dont need it haha... its really just one tool, out of many (free) - like self control;)

dothompson

What's a Polar Rate Heart Monitor?

sleepytexan

I would add to @sleepytexan response the following:

If your goal is simply to lose weight, I would skip the HRM. You don't need it as a tool. You can count calories, and your scale is the measurement device to gauge your progress.

But a whole lot of people use MyFitnessPal (not MyDietPal) to improve their fitness. This may (or may not) include losing weight. The best measurement device to gauge your progress towards your fitness goals is not a scale. It is a combination that includes bodyfat analysis, resting HR, comparing average heart rates over time for perceived exertion levels, and other performance parameters relating to fitness. In my case, I religiously use one on known, repeatable workouts (bike rides). So I need to time the workout, but also I need to know weather conditions, what I ate that day, wind speed and direction, my body weight, and my average heart rate.

Over time, this data correlates to my relative fitness. I'm not a competitive athlete. Hold it, I do race competitively for fun. I'm not a professional athlete. But I am an athlete, and I do care about quantifying my fitness.

If you are interested (or become interested) in quantifying your fitness, you need an HRM. Otherwise, don't bother.

@sleepytexan is making the assumption that she can do a spin class, dance, etc. once with an HRM, and she will know what her numbers are and they won't change. But if she gets serious about her fitness, and actually becomes more fit, she would find out that she won't burn the same amount of calories for a given workout at the same perceived exertion level, because her body got more efficient at using fuel. It's just how it happens.

My resting heart rate was once in the high 60's. Now its 45. My fitness has improved. The HRM helped me get there. Lance Armstrong had a resting rate of 32. Professional cyclists don't ride without one.

Also wanted to point out that unless my weight changes substantially (and I don't anticipate it would), or I am doing some half-hearted workout (unlikely) there is no reason to expect the amount of calories burned to be significantly different for the same activity during the same timeframe. Becoming more efficient does not alter the amount of calories burned during the activity, it just makes the activity easier to complete.

Easier to complete = less effort = less calories burned

This is why people increase exercise intensity over time, to get similar results. The body adapts and becomes stronger and needs more to challenge it calorically over time.

nope.

Experienced athletes burn the same number of calories as novices when performing the same action over the same time.

We will use physics to answer this question. In particular, the forumla for potential energy will be of use:

U = mass * gravity * height
Let's take the simple example of lifting a 20 kg dumbbell from the ground to 1 meter high.

U = m * g * h
U = 20 kg * 9.8 m/s^2 * 1 m
U = 196 joules
It takes 196 joules of energy to increase the potential energy of that dumbbell. Where does this energy come from? It must come from somewhere to satisfy the law of conservation of energy.

It states that the total amount of energy in a system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time)

The energy comes from the body burning calories. It must burn 196 joules to comply with the law.

1 cal = 4.2 joules
1 kcal = 42000 joules
196 joules / (42000 joules/kcal) = 0.00467 kcal
You burn 0.00467 kcal to move that dumbbell up. (Food items are always labeled plainly with calories, but technically they mean kilocalories). No where in these equations does experience or ease of effort factor in. Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime will burn 0.00467 kcal and a scrawny kid will also burn 0.00467 kcal to move a 20 kilogram dumbbell up 1 meter. Yes, Arnold will have a easier time because trained muscles store more glycogen and stronger muscle fibers contract. But he cannot defy the laws of physics by burning less calories than the scrawny kid.

The above assumes that the experienced athlete uses the same technique as the novice. In the real world, this is not always the case. In nearly every sport except bodybuilding, athletes use special techniques to more efficiently use their energy. These techniques channel more energy towards there goals and lets less energy dissipate for other means.

beautiful mathematical explanation courtesy of JoJo.

edit: perhaps you confuse the fact that people who LOSE WEIGHT burn fewer calories than they used to at the same activity. However, once you maintain your same weight, you still burn the same amount of calories, it's just easier for you to do so. That's why I can sing while I teach spin while my students struggle to cover their ears and breathe at the same time. ha

blessings.

Jess5825

In order to count your pulse I personally need to stand still. My HR drops pretty quickly, so by the time I count it, it is much lower than it was. Also counting your pulse isn't going to tell you calories burned. I've used a HRM for 6 years ad loved it. I recently upgraded to a BodyMedia Fit. which is fantastic

khvanzant

I have one but haven't used it. Down over 30 pounds - I have been using mapmyride; mapmyrun and C25K apps

sleepytexan

here's another thought:

Movement efficiency can be improved though training. How much of an effect this has depends on the form of exercises but generally isn't that big.

But the situation is a lot more complex. Let's say you go running. Over time you might lose some weight, which means you use less energy to run the same distance at the same pace. On the other hand as you get better at running you might run the same distance in shorter time, which uses more energy.

--thx to Helium

This is why it is useful to measure watts -- your output. I can produce more watts now than when I started spinning 8 years ago, because I am experienced and more efficient at the activity. I can produce more watts and thereby maintain (typically) or even increase calories burned than when I was inefficient at the same task.

Take riding a bike up a steep hill -- if I ride it on a fixy (well, let's say YOU ride it on a fixy, bc I would not even try that) -- anyway, that is way harder than riding it in the lowest gear of my 11-28, but will I burn more calories by being less efficient? bc I'm not used to riding the fixy? No. I'll probably just come unclipped and fall off the bike. ha.

tigersword

I would add to @sleepytexan response the following:

If your goal is simply to lose weight, I would skip the HRM. You don't need it as a tool. You can count calories, and your scale is the measurement device to gauge your progress.

But a whole lot of people use MyFitnessPal (not MyDietPal) to improve their fitness. This may (or may not) include losing weight. The best measurement device to gauge your progress towards your fitness goals is not a scale. It is a combination that includes bodyfat analysis, resting HR, comparing average heart rates over time for perceived exertion levels, and other performance parameters relating to fitness. In my case, I religiously use one on known, repeatable workouts (bike rides). So I need to time the workout, but also I need to know weather conditions, what I ate that day, wind speed and direction, my body weight, and my average heart rate.

Over time, this data correlates to my relative fitness. I'm not a competitive athlete. Hold it, I do race competitively for fun. I'm not a professional athlete. But I am an athlete, and I do care about quantifying my fitness.

If you are interested (or become interested) in quantifying your fitness, you need an HRM. Otherwise, don't bother.

@sleepytexan is making the assumption that she can do a spin class, dance, etc. once with an HRM, and she will know what her numbers are and they won't change. But if she gets serious about her fitness, and actually becomes more fit, she would find out that she won't burn the same amount of calories for a given workout at the same perceived exertion level, because her body got more efficient at using fuel. It's just how it happens.

My resting heart rate was once in the high 60's. Now its 45. My fitness has improved. The HRM helped me get there. Lance Armstrong had a resting rate of 32. Professional cyclists don't ride without one.

Also wanted to point out that unless my weight changes substantially (and I don't anticipate it would), or I am doing some half-hearted workout (unlikely) there is no reason to expect the amount of calories burned to be significantly different for the same activity during the same timeframe. Becoming more efficient does not alter the amount of calories burned during the activity, it just makes the activity easier to complete.

Easier to complete = less effort = less calories burned

This is why people increase exercise intensity over time, to get similar results. The body adapts and becomes stronger and needs more to challenge it calorically over time.

This is false due to one very large assumption you are making, and that is quite simply, perceived exertion != actual exertion. Just because you don't feel like you are working as hard, if you are doing the exact same activity, at the exact same pace, and you weigh exactly the same, you are burning the exact same number of calories.

Which is the entire problem I have with HRM's in general, they only measure perceived exertion, not actual exertion.

dannylives

sleepytexan don't play around, WOW. I think I'm in love.....just kidding.

sleepytexan

sleepytexan don't play around, WOW. I think I'm in love.....just kidding.

awwww. kidding? damn.

Jill_newimprovedversion

Gosh, how did ANYONE on this planet EVER lose weight without one?

xraychick77

Nope dont use..never have

just stick with my calorie limit and workout..dont eat back

dannylives

By the way, to all you who responded and have lost mucho pounds, MUCH RESPECT.

Cait_Sidhe

I lost the first 35 lb without a Polar HRM. But I only lost when I wasn't eating all my exercise calories back. I WAS eating all my exercise calories back and I plateaued not knowing that the calorie burns were way too high and I was eating too much. If I stayed a couple hundred under, I lost.

Now the HRM is letting me know just how much I can eat back and how much I can't. You can certainly lose weight without one. But I don't recommend eating back *all* your calories without it.

goron59

I lost about half my weight without using an HRM, but a lot of that time I was using gym equipment with built-in HRMs or using the MFP db or checking my pulse and using a pencil and paper.

Knowing your exercise calorie burn with some accuracy is useful if you're the sort of person who exercises to be able to eat more.

Knowing your HR is useful if you want to keep your HR in different zones for different purposes.

An HRM can also be a good measure of your fitness as it'll track your recovery times.

For me, it satisfies my geeky need-to-know stuff, and knowledge is power!

tigersword

But HRM's are innately inaccurate. Your heart rate is not a good measure of calories burned. You train at an activity, your heart rate goes down during it. According to your HRM you are now burning less calories, but that isn't the actual case. Unless you've lost weight, you're still burning the same number of calories. You drink a cup of coffee, your heart rate goes up, and your HRM claims you burned more calories. You didn't.

It takes the same amount of energy to do the same amount of work, regardless of the fitness level of the body. Running at 5 mph for 20 minutes will always burn the same number of calories, unless your weight changes. Basically I think HRM's are mostly a placebo effect. They're ok for keeping your HR in a specific intensity range (as long as they are accurate) but I'd never trust them alone for calorie burn.

solpwr

But HRM's are innately inaccurate. Your heart rate is not a good measure of calories burned. You train at an activity, your heart rate goes down during it. According to your HRM you are now burning less calories, but that isn't the actual case. Unless you've lost weight, you're still burning the same number of calories. You drink a cup of coffee, your heart rate goes up, and your HRM claims you burned more calories. You didn't.

It takes the same amount of energy to do the same amount of work, regardless of the fitness level of the body. Running at 5 mph for 20 minutes will always burn the same number of calories, unless your weight changes. Basically I think HRM's are mostly a placebo effect. They're ok for keeping your HR in a specific intensity range (as long as they are accurate) but I'd never trust them alone for calorie burn.

What would you trust then?

solpwr

here's another thought:

Movement efficiency can be improved though training. How much of an effect this has depends on the form of exercises but generally isn't that big.

But the situation is a lot more complex. Let's say you go running. Over time you might lose some weight, which means you use less energy to run the same distance at the same pace. On the other hand as you get better at running you might run the same distance in shorter time, which uses more energy.

--thx to Helium

This is why it is useful to measure watts -- your output. I can produce more watts now than when I started spinning 8 years ago, because I am experienced and more efficient at the activity. I can produce more watts and thereby maintain (typically) or even increase calories burned than when I was inefficient at the same task.

Take riding a bike up a steep hill -- if I ride it on a fixy (well, let's say YOU ride it on a fixy, bc I would not even try that) -- anyway, that is way harder than riding it in the lowest gear of my 11-28, but will I burn more calories by being less efficient? bc I'm not used to riding the fixy? No. I'll probably just come unclipped and fall off the bike. ha.

Thank you. You've made my point for me. Except that it is a bigger issue than you may think.

An F350 and a Prius drive 10 miles, same road, same speed, same day. Two different fuel consumptions. Different efficiency.
Two F350's do the same thing. Same conditions. Two different fuel consumptions. What happened? Efficiency differences.

When I ride, many factors go into my fuel consumption. Two days, same ride. One day burn 100 calories less than the day before. Same perceived exertion. What happened? My rest that night, the temperature outside, a tail wind, etc, etc.

So I go log my calories. Bicycling, cycling, vigorous (14-16 mph), 62 minutes: xxx calories. Wait, what?!? That's totally wrong.

Those numbers are not even close for me. I ride in an aero position. 700/23 tires. Fitted bike.

One, I was riding at 18 mph. How would I know to pick differently? The other, with a tail wind, I might be in the 10-12 mph equivalent range, using MFP calcs.

This is just the argument for using HRM numbers. But to actually quantify improvements in fitness (my original supposition), an HRM is the best tool for that, in conjunction with detailed logs.

By the way, your physics equation quantifies effort. The effort is the same. The fuel consumed to achieve the effort varies with respect to efficiency. Some people have an F350, some have a Prius.