Anyone out there lost weight WITHOUT a Polar HRM?

tigersword

Your heart rate is irrelevant for exercise calories, because heart rate is part of the calories you normally burn. If you ordinarily burn 100 calories an hour with your basic function, and exercise for an hour, you still burn those 100 regular calories on top of whatever you burn exercising. Does your heart rate go up during exercise? Yes. Does it go down afterwards? Yes. Does that even out? Again, yes. The amount of fat you burn stays consistent as well. Burn 1000 calories in a high intensity exercise, or 400 calories in a lower intensity exercise and the total amount of fat you burn in a 24 hour period is the same.

tigersword

So if anyone is interested in seeing the output of a Polar HRM that has recording capability, follow the two links I've shared to my training diary.

These are the same ride.

http://bit.ly/o2TgmP
920 calories
16.4 mph
May 2nd.

http://bit.ly/r7oSfh
678 calories
17.9 mph
Sept 7th.
You can also change the settings to display altitude.

Yes the average Heart Rate is down. I will tell you that I did the ride again on Sept 14th. I haven't downloaded it to my training diary yet. I rode it all out, as hard as I could go. I did it in 58 minutes flat, average speed 18.5 mph, calorie burn was 720 calories, A FULL 200 CALORIES LESS THAN 4 MONTHS AGO. Average HR I believe was low 130's, similar to the May ride.

So what changed between then and now if my HR was the same? I ran the Fitness Test twice between then and now. My OwnIndex (Polar's estimation of VO2 max) values improved. Better fitness = more efficient fuel burning. It's easier to show you if you are really interested.

You're saying your heart rate was the same. Looking at the links you posted, your heart rate was not the same. Your average heart rate was 10 beats less for the second ride. (EDIT - I misread your heart rate statement, corrected further down.) That right there would show as less effort and less calories burned according to an HRM. As for the recent ride, a change in heart rate of 10 beats per minute effected your ride by 40 calories? Sounds irrelevant. An increase of about 600 beats of your heart (10 beats per minute * 60 minutes) shows that you burn 0.067 calories per beat. Not exactly a significant indicator of caloric burn.

Also, I will assume you lost weight between May and September (judging based on your signature) which will also cause a reduction in calories burned. It really has nothing to do with, "becoming more efficient," and your numbers seem to bear that out.

koosdel

Ever chased a balloon in the wind?

dannylives

I think so? Maybe.

Ashleysh22

I would pretty much kill for a HRM - but can't justify the purchase as I just started medical school. I did figure out how to calculate calories though for your exercises without it - albeit it is a minor pain in the butt.

1. every 3-4 minutes stop and take your pulse for 10 seconds and record both the time that has passed and that number

2. multiply the number of minutes (1 minute 15 seconds = 1.25 minutes) x the rate that you got for those minutes

EX: Lets say after 3.5 minutes of exercise I get 27 heart beats (hb) - I will get 3.5x27= 94.5

CALL these numbers column 2

3. now add up all of column 2 (the products you calculated in step 2) and separately add up the total amount of time.

4. Divide the total of column 2/ by the total of time you worked out - this will give you the average heart beat per 10 seconds of workout.

5. Multiply the number you get in step 4 by 6 - to get the average heart beat per a minute throughout your workout

6. put this information along with your sex, age, and weight into this calculator:

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

If you need more details or examples - I wrote a whole blog entry about this a few months back.
http://www.homemadefit.com/2011/08/how-to-calculate-calories-burned-in-your-workout-without-a-heart-rate-monitor/

anyways - it is pretty accurate actually - despite you having to pause for 10 second breaks. I have had people that DO own HRM compare their own numbers.

so until we all win the lottery and get a HRM - here we go!!

redraidergirl2009

I've lost all my weight without one. It is annoying when you ask how to log something and everyone's just like "oh what's your hrm say?"
I'm a student, I don't have that sort of disposable income so I think i can do without one. If I do get one I'd get a mio, it's cheaper and I think you just use it per work out which is really all I'd want it for

sleepytexan

I guess that's your way of saying "I can't explain that". Thanks anyhow.

That is the most pleasant translation, yes.

solpwr

So if anyone is interested in seeing the output of a Polar HRM that has recording capability, follow the two links I've shared to my training diary.

These are the same ride.

http://bit.ly/o2TgmP
920 calories
16.4 mph
May 2nd.

http://bit.ly/r7oSfh
678 calories
17.9 mph
Sept 7th.
You can also change the settings to display altitude.

Yes the average Heart Rate is down. I will tell you that I did the ride again on Sept 14th. I haven't downloaded it to my training diary yet. I rode it all out, as hard as I could go. I did it in 58 minutes flat, average speed 18.5 mph, calorie burn was 720 calories, A FULL 200 CALORIES LESS THAN 4 MONTHS AGO. Average HR I believe was low 130's, similar to the May ride.

So what changed between then and now if my HR was the same? I ran the Fitness Test twice between then and now. My OwnIndex (Polar's estimation of VO2 max) values improved. Better fitness = more efficient fuel burning. It's easier to show you if you are really interested.

You're saying your heart rate was the same. Looking at the links you posted, your heart rate was not the same. Your average heart rate was 10 beats less for the second ride. (EDIT - I misread your heart rate statement, corrected further down.) That right there would show as less effort and less calories burned according to an HRM. As for the recent ride, a change in heart rate of 10 beats per minute effected your ride by 40 calories? Sounds irrelevant. An increase of about 600 beats of your heart (10 beats per minute * 60 minutes) shows that you burn 0.067 calories per beat. Not exactly a significant indicator of caloric burn.

Also, I will assume you lost weight between May and September (judging based on your signature) which will also cause a reduction in calories burned. It really has nothing to do with, "becoming more efficient," and your numbers seem to bear that out.

Dude,
You really confuse me. Your point of view is hard to follow. Its probably just me.

Is your goal here to disprove that heart rate monitors are an effective gauge of fitness and sports performance? Or what?

Listen, it can be proven that exercise intensity is directly proportional to heart rate measured in BPM. So when something correlates directly, and you can measure it, what you need to know is the equation and variables to accurately represent the relationship between the two. Now, granted, some more simple HRM don't always include all of the significant variables. Mine does.

I said before, your mind is made up, clearly. I put those links out there so that if someone is actually interested in seeing what some of these do, they could.

This stuff is science. The math programmed into the devices is established. You are arguing with basic level exercise physiology. You might as well throw out the concepts and math behind food, calories, calorie deficits to lose weight, calories per gram of protein, fats, and carbohydrates.

Have a great day.


Edited to add: My weight on May 2 was 212. Last week it was 203. 9 pounds lighter now. That didn't account for 200 calories difference. Of course, I'm thinking you are disputing that I actually burned 200 fewer calories now than in May. Right?

Also, maybe I'm way off base here. Do you have some kind of knowledge base that I am not appreciating here? I'm just an old guy who went from bodybuilding and competitive arm wrestling in his 20's to mountain bike racing through his 40's-50's and everything in between, trying to stay fit along the way. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. On the other hand, I know enough to know that I can learn. So I would like to hear what I can learn from you. More than just, "that's a gimmick". I need your basis for your assumptions. You give me some basis. I evaluate, and maybe be persuaded.

kmcrey87

I don't have a HRM....

solpwr

Your heart rate is irrelevant for exercise calories, because heart rate is part of the calories you normally burn. If you ordinarily burn 100 calories an hour with your basic function, and exercise for an hour, you still burn those 100 regular calories on top of whatever you burn exercising. Does your heart rate go up during exercise? Yes. Does it go down afterwards? Yes. Does that even out? Again, yes. The amount of fat you burn stays consistent as well. Burn 1000 calories in a high intensity exercise, or 400 calories in a lower intensity exercise and the total amount of fat you burn in a 24 hour period is the same.

And @Tigersword, BMR is factored into HRM calculations. I've if I'm sitting at a computer wearing my monitor, the exercise calories recorded by the device is 0. You tell the device, or it calculates it, or it assume based on averages, what your resting rate is. Like I said, its a math equation. Long established. It's not a mystery.

tigersword

My entire point is HRM's are unnecessary. They are useful tools for people who want them, but they are truly no more accurate than any other method. They use the same formula to calculate calories burned as everyone else does. METs * weight. They use your heart rate to determine METs. Anything can affect your heart rate and cause a false reading on an HRM. I would never rely solely on an HRM to determine calories burned. What about electromagnetic interference that causes your HRM to lose the transmission for several seconds out of your exercise? It throws off the numbers.

According to an HRM, someone on beta blockers would not be burning very many calories, as beta blockers lower their heart rate, and they wouldn't be able to appreciably raise their heart rate to get any sort of accurate calculation. Same with drinking a cup of coffee (or a piece of chocolate) before exercising, as caffeine raises your resting heart rate, and again, can throw off a reading.

I'm not trying to prove them useless, I'm just trying to show that they aren't as necessary as their marketing departments have convinced people they are.

solpwr

My entire point is HRM's are unnecessary. They are useful tools for people who want them, but they are truly no more accurate than any other method. They use the same formula to calculate calories burned as everyone else does. METs * weight. They use your heart rate to determine METs. Anything can affect your heart rate and cause a false reading on an HRM. I would never rely solely on an HRM to determine calories burned. What about electromagnetic interference that causes your HRM to lose the transmission for several seconds out of your exercise? It throws off the numbers.

According to an HRM, someone on beta blockers would not be burning very many calories, as beta blockers lower their heart rate, and they wouldn't be able to appreciably raise their heart rate to get any sort of accurate calculation. Same with drinking a cup of coffee (or a piece of chocolate) before exercising, as caffeine raises your resting heart rate, and again, can throw off a reading.

I'm not trying to prove them useless, I'm just trying to show that they aren't as necessary as their marketing departments have convinced people they are.

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

Point: Beta blockers. I used to be on them. Yes, they lower your heart rate. They also lower your resting heart rate. When I got off them my resting rate went up +/- 8 BPM. But a good HRM also uses your resting rate in the calculation, so that issue is accounted for.

You said: "They use the same formula to calculate calories burned as everyone else does." I assume that 'they' means Polar (or all the copies of the technology). Who is 'everyone else'? If you mean MFP, or other calorie estimates, these are very simple estimates based on averages for people of similar genders, weights, fitness levels, and ages. You have to understand that these averages are fine for "average" people, similar to BMI calculations that work for average people. But these estimates don't work for people who are more fit than average for their age, gender, and body weight. Not all 35 year old males who weigh 200 pounds burn the same amount of calories walking 6 miles for an hour. Furthermore, that same man 2 years later may weigh 40 pounds less, but have actually gained 8 pounds of lean muscle mass in that time. If you use a tool that uses gender, weights, and age, without regard to fitness level (VO2 max and max HR), and body fat %, you CANNOT get an accurate reflection of your individual energy expended at a specific activity. Sorry, IMPOSSIBLE.

I will concede, as I have in several previous posts, if your goal simply is weight loss, an HRM is just a luxury, or as you put it, 'unnecessary'. Through logging, a body weight scale, and trial and error, anyone can lose weight.

Please understand and concede the point that they can be very useful for people who's primary goal is increasing fitness and performance levels for their respective sports, both professionally and recreational. Also understand, these devices are not all created equally! I wouldn't consider owning one that gives me less information than I've described previously. I don't think you fully understand how different and sophisticated some of these devices are.

In my experience, individuals who become overweight and out of shape run a similar continuum over time. 1) They are not genetically gifted with being able to eat whatever they want and do whatever activities they choose and never get overweight. 2) They get busy with their lives, don't pay attention to their physical bodies, and become overweight and out of shape physically. 3) Something happens in their life that puts them in touch with their own mortality. 4) They get fed up with being in this physical condition they've found themselves in, and resolve to change. 5) They enact a program to tackle the problem, which initially attacks what they see in the mirror; the external manifestation of this poor physical condition. 6) They make progress through diet and exercise, see positive results in the mirror, and begin to notice the secondary benefits of better health, improved performance of their favorite physical activities, and notice improvements in their exercise regime. 7) They begin to use their exercise regime as an important metric to gauge their progress, and the results in the mirror become less of a focus than previously. 8) They get close to their initial goals weight loss goals, and realize that further improvements could be made, and their primary goal transitions from weight loss to physical fitness levels, because they continue to see ongoing improvements at their now favorite sports, developed as a result of their exercise regime. 9) They realize that the body weight scale does not give them the feedback they need to further their progress, and they no longer focus on their day to day weight, using the scale as general feedback to look at trends rather than progress towards their goal. 10) They adapt strategies that will help them keep their good health and physical well being. Success realized.

Somewhere between step 6 and 10 people buy an HRM. If you haven't hit step 6, you think they are a waste. If you've hit step 9 and you haven't bought one yet, you are unusual. The reason is, people want to quantify progress. That's why they look in the mirror, step on the scale, notice their clothing sizes. But when people do change their primary focus from their external appearance to their overall fitness and health and internal well-being, they still want to quantify progress. An HRM is one of those tools that can give that quantification. One of the BEST tools in my opinion, especially on a day to day, week to week basis.

Granted, some people get derailed along the way and never get to step 10. It happens. Its a little sad. Such is life. *kitten* happens, as they say.

Finally, please consider the following, it is important information pertinent to your point of view:

The following is from Savage P., Ades P., A re-examination of the metabolic equivalent (MET) concept in individuals with coronary heart disease, Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation & Prevention, September/October 2007, Volume 27 Number 5, Pages 321 - 321

Limitations in the usage of MET to calculate actual energy expenditure

It must be noted that published MET values (or exercise calorie calculators on web sites, which are based on such values) for specific activities are experimentally and statistically derived from a sample of persons and are in fact indicative averages. Obviously the level of intensity at which a specific person performs a specific physical activity (e.g., the pace of walking, the speed of running, etc.) will deviate from the representative experimental conditions used for the calculation of the standard MET values, but moreover, as is explained in the following, the actual energy expenditure and the RMR will differ according to the person's overall fitness level and other factors.

The same holds for MET (or kcal) values indicated in modern fitness exercise equipment, which are based on statistical models and are of indicative value only. In this case, even if the MET value indicated is a better statistical prediction than published tables, there is no way to account for the person's actual RMR and thus energy expenditure (e.g., Kcal). In short, a person can use the MET concept to plan or monitor physical activity levels or get an indication of the aerobic intensity and order of magnitude of energy expenditure for a specific activity, but not use the MET concept to calculate actual energy expenditure or a daily energy input-output balance.

More specifically, from a strictly scientific point of view, statistically estimated predictions, such as MET or BMI, are inaccurate when used for specific persons, and MET values must be treated as indicative only, taking into account that both RMR and actual energy consumption are highly dependent on physical and environmental factors such as adiposity, physical fitness level, cardiovascular health, or even ambient temperature.

Moreover, even the definition of MET is problematic when used for specific persons.[10][11] By convention, 1 MET is considered equivalent to the consumption of 3.5 ml O2·kg-1·min-1 (or 3.5 ml of oxygen per kilogram of body mass per minute) and is roughly equivalent to the expenditure of 1 kcal per kilogram of body weight per hour. This value was first experimentally derived from the resting oxygen consumption of a particular subject (a healthy 40-year-old, 70 kg man) and must therefore be treated as a convention. Since the RMR of a person depends mainly on lean body mass (and not total weight) and other physiological factors such as health status, age, etc., actual RMR (and thus 1-MET energy equivalents) may vary significantly from the kcal/(kg·h) rule of thumb. RMR measurements by calorimetry in medical surveys have shown that the conventional 1-MET value overestimates the actual resting O2 consumption and energy expenditures by about 20% to 30% on the average, whereas body composition (ratio of body fat to lean body mass) accounted for most of the variance.

dannylives

So should I get one or not? Haha, totally just kidding!