You won't believe what my doc told me!!

christine24t

I don't have a HRM, I just use the reading on the machine. That being said, I sometimes will feel like I've had a hard workout and the reading will say i've burned less calories than times where I have a lame workout. So I would just disregard the monitor!

Ange_

No time to check if someone has already written this.

But my HRM (a Suunto) asks you to put in your resting heart rate.
So presumably if my resting HR was 60 and i did some exercise that got it up to 140 it would burn more calories than if my resting heart rate was 110 and it went to the same 140 as i'm working harder.
So i'm assuming the number of calories your HRM works out is the difference between what it is when you working out and what it is when you are at rest.

So you should have changed the settings on your HRM when you went on and off the medication. In fact we should all review it from time to time as you get fitter your HR is slower at rest.

This is just my educated guess though. Makes sense to me though.

Azdak

Over the past year, my doctor (he's a GP who specializes in weight loss and fitness, not a chiropractor) has gone from being in the calories in/calories out, low fat diet camp to being in the low carb camp. He said this past week what your cardiologist says: use a HRM to monitor your cardio fitness and workouts, but heart rate is unrelated to weight loss. So apparently is the amount of fat you consume, and the amount of exercise you do. And this is the doctor who a few years ago had me on a 50 grams of fat per day diet. The fact that this measured and logical person has changed his position on this made me sit up and take notice; he says he's been moving his weight loss patients to a low-carb paradigm since last spring, and he sees a real positive difference in both weight loss and cardio fitness. I'm still in shock at what I heard from him during my biannual checkup.

He gave me a handout he's written, which includes a bibliography. The controlling factor in fat metabolism is apparently insulin, and it's carbs that control insulin. So after being on a plateau for some months on a low-fat diet, I've switched to low carb per his advice and the weight is coming off again. The books he recommended are "Why We Get Fat" (newer and condensed version of "Good Calories, Bad Calories") by Gary Taubes, and "Food Rules" and "In Defense of Food", by Michael Pollan. The only one I have so far is "Why We Get Fat" and it's a compelling read.

So I'm concentrating on veggies, good protein, and limiting complex carbs and fruits, and staying away from the refined sugar and starches (I love my treats, and it turns out "low fat" but high carb treats are no treat for my body). I'm also eating when I'm hungry and stopping when I'm full. I'm exercising for cardio fitness rather than weight loss. I use the MFP app on my iPad as a food journal, and to monitor my carb intake, water intake, and exercise. No calorie or fat counting, no carb counting, just better choices ... and I only weigh myself once a week since I know (being a software engineering type) I can easily become obsessive about measuring things.

With all due respect, I could not disagree more strenuously with your doctor's opinions. Better minds than mine have pretty much debunked anything that Gary Taubes has ever written. The "insulin" thesis is a seductive one, because it sounds simple and logical (and contrarian, which also appeals to certain people) Unfortunately, our bodies are complex, so overly simplistic, "one trick pony" approaches are usually pretty limiting. A lot of times people will see results after making these changes, but the results have nothing to do with "controlling insulin" or whatever the flavor-of-the-month diet is. Often the results come just from being remotivated and more vigilant about eating habits.

There is nothing wrong with the plan, don't get me wrong. And if you are happy with it, so much the better. But it is not intrinsically better than anything else out there.

vingogly

With all due respect, I could not disagree more strenuously with your doctor's opinions. Better minds than mine have pretty much debunked anything that Gary Taubes has ever written. The "insulin" thesis is a seductive one, because it sounds simple and logical (and contrarian, which also appeals to certain people) Unfortunately, our bodies are complex, so overly simplistic, "one trick pony" approaches are usually pretty limiting. A lot of times people will see results after making these changes, but the results have nothing to do with "controlling insulin" or whatever the flavor-of-the-month diet is. Often the results come just from being remotivated and more vigilant about eating habits.

There is nothing wrong with the plan, don't get me wrong. And if you are happy with it, so much the better. But it is not intrinsically better than anything else out there.

If you read my post carefully, you'll see that I'm "concentrating on veggies, good protein, and limiting complex carbs and fruits, and staying away from the refined sugar and starches". Every approach to fitness including low fat I'm familiar with would agree with this approach and say I'm on the right track ... and regarding Magic Bullets, I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday; I have graduate study in multiple scientific/engineering disciplines, so I know how to read scientific literature (as I presume my MD does). If you've got a link to one of these "better minds" that has point-by-point refuted Taubes, I'd be glad to have a look.

SuperCork

I think your doc is right. Your heart pumping away isn't actually what's determining how many cals you're burning, it's just that the HRM is using that as a gauge to assess how hard your body is probably working. It figures, "Damn, if that girl's HR is 180, she must be sprinting." I finally figured out that was the case with weight-lifting, which is why so few calories are burned doing it even if your HR is up. Just because your heart is beating hard, doesn't mean you are burning tons of calories. Sorry--it's sad b/c my HR runs hot, too, and my burn estimates are usually over the truth.

This is all basically true, but with weight lifting (which is anerobic work) things are a little different. Don't bother using an HRM here: yes, you will feel your heart rate going up in certain situations, but you are not burning many calories aerobically because it's a different process. Weight lifting has many benefits in the calorie burning department post-workout (afterburn) AND is essential for long term weight loss because greater lean muscle mass essentially turns you into a calorie-torching furnace even at rest in the long run. There is a TON of great info out there on this, just make sure it's coming from repuatable sources as there are a lot of dumb people out there who don't understand these things, yet have a lot to say about it (not say that's either of you guys at all, to be clear!!!!!! :happy: )

valeriebpdx

I finally figured out that was the case with weight-lifting, which is why so few calories are burned doing it even if your HR is up. Just because your heart is beating hard, doesn't mean you are burning tons of calories.

This is all basically true, but with weight lifting (which is anerobic work) things are a little different. Don't bother using an HRM here: yes, you will feel your heart rate going up in certain situations, but you are not burning many calories aerobically because it's a different process.

Isn't that what I just said?

Azdak

I finally figured out that was the case with weight-lifting, which is why so few calories are burned doing it even if your HR is up. Just because your heart is beating hard, doesn't mean you are burning tons of calories.

This is all basically true, but with weight lifting (which is anerobic work) things are a little different. Don't bother using an HRM here: yes, you will feel your heart rate going up in certain situations, but you are not burning many calories aerobically because it's a different process.

Isn't that what I just said?

:bigsmile:

DopeItUp

Look on the bright side, at least now you know that you're only burning ~350 calories in your walks instead of 550. Hell, honestly 350 seems kinda high for walking 3 miles if you're an averaged sized woman, but it's probably somewhat close. 550 is way off.