BodyMedia and BodyBugg users, question for ya

heybales

Trying to setup something in spreadsheet to help either tweak, or at least use the device's stats to set up a better deficit amount and use with MFP.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/955961-fitbit-or-bodymedia-tweaking-to-use-ipoarm-method

But something has been discovered that may trash my concept.

If any volunteers want to check and report their findings, I'd be thrilled.

First, in BMF site, top line for your daily calorie burn, find a good 2 hr during your sleep where the graphed burn is lowest, that's your BMR.
If you highlight a 2 hr block, it'll tell you the calorie burn for that time.
Calories burned / 120 min = calories per min x 1440 = BMR they are using.

Now, can you find a time where you were sedentary, perhaps work day stuck at desk, sitting at movie, home on couch, and do the same thing.

Does it really appear they use the sleeping deeply BMR calorie burn for any awake and sitting time?

Just curious, it trashes the whole idea that you can use sedentary non-exercise days as accurate estimate of non-exercise TDEE.

If you can also mention if using BodyMedia and what device (which shouldn't matter as the website does the math) or BodyBugg or other similar device where they have their own website, but may use the same math.

Thanks much any volunteers.

mcva929

I'm using the BodyMedia Fit (I don't know which model number) and I tried to follow your instructions. During a time of deep sleep, it calculates 0.9 calories/minute. During "sedentary" activities, it's calculating 1.1-1.2 calories/minute. I don't know what the formula is, but hopefully this helps!

holleysings

I burned 162 calories from Midnight-2am while sleeping, which gave me 1.35 cal/min and a BMR of 1944. I'm never really sedentary, so I can't test the method you're asking about during the day. However, BodyMedia's graph shows what you burn per minute when you select a certain minute. Mine usually says 1.3 cal or 1.4 cal if I'm just sitting there. Hope that helps!

heybales

I'm using the BodyMedia Fit (I don't know which model number) and I tried to follow your instructions. During a time of deep sleep, it calculates 0.9 calories/minute. During "sedentary" activities, it's calculating 1.1-1.2 calories/minute. I don't know what the formula is, but hopefully this helps!

That helps, so your sitting time no movement is slightly more than sleeping time.

BMR of about 1300.

Thanks.

heybales

I burned 162 calories from Midnight-2am while sleeping, which gave me 1.35 cal/min and a BMR of 1944. I'm never really sedentary, so I can't test the method you're asking about during the day. However, BodyMedia's graph shows what you burn per minute when you select a certain minute. Mine usually says 1.3 cal or 1.4 cal if I'm just sitting there. Hope that helps!

So that is the same as other example PM'd to me, same BMR level calories for sleeping on sitting still, which it should really be RMR high calories for sitting awake.

Oh, notice they are estimating BMR higher than your newly tested RMR. So it still may be inflated TDEE readings.

jaz050465

I use Kifit- the Uk version. I have 1.1 for sleeping and 1.3 for sitting.

jnj1013

Based on my activity log I burn the same 1.0 per minute when sleeping as when sitting at my desk at work. I noticed this almost immediately when I first started using my link - that my job is basically the same as being bedridden. I immediately starting getting up once an hour to make a lap around the cubes at work - 10 times in a day gets me a mile of extra walking. If it's wrong & I am burning more when sitting at my desk I don't really care, it motivated me to get off my butt during my work day which is why I got the thing in the first place.

Either way - hope that helps.

heybales

Based on my activity log I burn the same 1.0 per minute when sleeping as when sitting at my desk at work. I noticed this almost immediately when I first started using my link - that my job is basically the same as being bedridden. I immediately starting getting up once an hour to make a lap around the cubes at work - 10 times in a day gets me a mile of extra walking. If it's wrong & I am burning more when sitting at my desk I don't really care, it motivated me to get off my butt during my work day which is why I got the thing in the first place.

Either way - hope that helps.

You are correct, being awake and sitting is RMR, which is 150-250 more than BMR automatically, so they do seem to underestimate there.
I guess it is good incentive then, plus an automatic bigger deficit.

Thank you.

heybales

I use Kifit- the Uk version. I have 1.1 for sleeping and 1.3 for sitting.

Thank you.

Difference, and UK version.

sirabe

.9 sleeping and 1 sitting still

jaz050465

I use Kifit- the Uk version. I have 1.1 for sleeping and 1.3 for sitting.

Thank you.

Difference, and UK version.

Don't understand question. This is the Advantage model The core and Likc aren't licenced in Europe so we can't use them in the UK. Kiperformance buy into the BM website and you register through kiperformance. I think everything else is the same. You can however pay extra for sports s ientists to look at your data and give advice by phone.

heybales

I use Kifit- the Uk version. I have 1.1 for sleeping and 1.3 for sitting.

Thank you.

Difference, and UK version.

Don't understand question. This is the Advantage model The core and Likc aren't licenced in Europe so we can't use them in the UK. Kiperformance buy into the BM website and you register through kiperformance. I think everything else is the same. You can however pay extra for sports s ientists to look at your data and give advice by phone.

Sorry, no question, just statement there was a difference between them and UK version. But thanks for explanation that the same website is used, which means same math on the data.

maltipink

My sitting BMF RMR is almost exactly the same as my sleeping BMR! Both are right around 1670. Ridiculous! I know the BodyMedia fit company looks at these message boards. It would be nice to hear them weigh in on this.

heybales

Just went back to some of my old data, and indeed, 1.4 cal/min avg sleeping, 1.4 cal/min avg sitting at desk at work. There should have been a difference between BMR and RMR.

Oh, and funny, my BMR 1.4 x 1440 = 2016 was never that high. So I was one of the unlucky ones that did not get an accurate BMR adjustment based on sleeping.
And my BMR at that time was base on VO2max test, the resting time, so RMR test. Much lower.

thistleandfi

I have the BMF Link armband & my stats appear to be an average 0.7 /0.8 sleeping and 1.2 sitting at a desk working.

vicmonster

Using BMF Core - deep sleep is .9 and conference call where I'm just listening is same .9.

heybales

I'm beginning to think that some of us radiate heat to that little bitty sensor better than others.

I know many have said they do the math on that night time calories, that's BMR, and it matches very close to Katch BMR based on bodyfat, even though BMF uses Harris BMR.
Mine did not, so my sleep time heat measurements weren't any good.

So I'm still thinking an adjustment to start the BMF closer to a better value can't hurt, only help. But that daytime burn amount based on BMR too concerns me, but maybe it's not so bad, 100-250 calories underestimated may not be bad.

Thanks for all the help, any more data points always useful.

holleysings

I'm beginning to think that some of us radiate heat to that little bitty sensor better than others.

I know many have said they do the math on that night time calories, that's BMR, and it matches very close to Katch BMR based on bodyfat, even though BMF uses Harris BMR.
Mine did not, so my sleep time heat measurements weren't any good.

So I'm still thinking an adjustment to start the BMF closer to a better value can't hurt, only help. But that daytime burn amount based on BMR too concerns me, but maybe it's not so bad, 100-250 calories underestimated may not be bad.

Thanks for all the help, any more data points always useful.

I did go back and look at the "dips" when I'm sleeping. The lowest it puts me is 1.1 cal/min and that's only for a few minutes. Also, I noticed when I take it off at night it automatically assumes I burn 1.3 cal/min the whole night.

heybales

I did go back and look at the "dips" when I'm sleeping. The lowest it puts me is 1.1 cal/min and that's only for a few minutes. Also, I noticed when I take it off at night it automatically assumes I burn 1.3 cal/min the whole night.

1.3 x 1440 = 1872 BMR sound close?

Especially Katch BMR?

Couple have said it actually adjusted from the Harris down to the Katch level, so it can happen.

holleysings

I did go back and look at the "dips" when I'm sleeping. The lowest it puts me is 1.1 cal/min and that's only for a few minutes. Also, I noticed when I take it off at night it automatically assumes I burn 1.3 cal/min the whole night.

1.3 x 1440 = 1872 BMR sound close?

Especially Katch BMR?

Couple have said it actually adjusted from the Harris down to the Katch level, so it can happen.

Yes, pretty accurate since my RMR tests at 1771 give or take 177 calories. On BodyMedia's website, it says "The Activity Manager does not base your calorie burn upon BMR or RMR. However, the World Health Organization RMR calculation (WHO-RMR) is used indirectly." (http://www.bodymedia.com/search.html?searchTerm=RMR) So I'm not sure how they're figuring it out other than using all of the data it collects in some complex way. I find it all very fascinating!

heybales

I did go back and look at the "dips" when I'm sleeping. The lowest it puts me is 1.1 cal/min and that's only for a few minutes. Also, I noticed when I take it off at night it automatically assumes I burn 1.3 cal/min the whole night.

1.3 x 1440 = 1872 BMR sound close?

Especially Katch BMR?

Couple have said it actually adjusted from the Harris down to the Katch level, so it can happen.

Yes, pretty accurate since my RMR tests at 1771 give or take 177 calories. On BodyMedia's website, it says "The Activity Manager does not base your calorie burn upon BMR or RMR. However, the World Health Organization RMR calculation (WHO-RMR) is used indirectly." (http://www.bodymedia.com/search.html?searchTerm=RMR) So I'm not sure how they're figuring it out other than using all of the data it collects in some complex way. I find it all very fascinating!

Interesting.
So the activity levels you can select at the beginning dealing with your goals is the standard Harris TDEE table, and when they calculate the goals, they base it on the Harris BMR.

Indirectly, I think that's where the adjustment comes in, based on the heat they see leaving at night. If you are good at heat escaping that spot where the sensor is to match their tables of what that means for BMR.

I guess, at some point you hope they did the math right. That RMR calc is without published studies. At least they adjust from there it seems, if your body reads well for heat flux.

But then you see a study where they screwed it up. I mean, come on, some of these are BMR, some are RMR, and there is a difference between those 2 levels, RMR should be higher.
I love how this study found the BMR calculators under-estimated the RMR that was tested. No duh.

A new predictive equation to calculate resting metabolic rate in athletes.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1999 Sep;39(3):213-9.

BACKGROUND: The purposes of the present study were: 1) to examine the accuracy and precision of seven published equations for predicting resting metabolic rate (RMR) in male athletes and 2) to develop a population-specific equation. Setting: The study occurred during a non-intensive training period. The measurements were performed at the Human Physiology laboratory. Participants: Fifty-one male athletes (22 waterpolo, 12 judo, 17 karate) who exercised regularly at least three hours per day. Measures: RMR was measured (mRMR) using indirect calorimetry (ventilated hood system). Besides, mRMR was compared with values predicted (pRMR) using equations of FAO/WHO/UNU, Harris and Benedict, Mifflin et al., Owen et al., Cunningham, Robertson and Reid, Fleisch. Statistical analyses. mRMR was compared with pRMR by means of Student's paired "t" tests, linear regression analysis and the Bland-Altman test. Relationships between mRMR and the different predictive variables were evaluated by Pearson correlation coefficients. The best subset was used to develop the predictive equation for RMR. RESULTS: mRMR was significantly underestimated by six of the seven equations in this sample of athletes. Only the Cunningham equation overestimated (+59 kcal/d) the actual RMR. Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement were wide (+/- 200-300 kcal/d) for all equations. RMR correlated best with body surface area (r = 0.88), body weight (r = 0.84) and height (r = 0.81). The best-fit equation for the entire data included both weight and height and it was given by: RMR (kcal/d) = -857 + 9.0 (Wt in kg) + 11.7 (Ht in cm) (R2 = 0.78; SEE = 91 kcal/d; 95% IC: -226, 228). CONCLUSIONS: For an individual resting metabolic rate evaluation, the use of indirect calorimetry is recommended. In conditions where this technique cannot be used, our developed equation can predict the RMR of athletes better than any of the currently available prediction equations.