Help: upgrading Polar HRM to either FitBit or BodyBugg

Options
Swimgoddess
Swimgoddess Posts: 711 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I'm considering upgrading from my Polar F7 HRM to an all-day device, like FitBit or BodyBugg.  Because MFP assumes a woman my age & height is 26% body-fat if you figure their estimates backwards via Katch-McArdle, MFP caloric estimates have not worked for me in quite some time, and there seems to be a forever moving fine-line threshold between my maintenance and starvation mode. It used to be really easy for me to adjust to lose weight: at 26% BF I could lose at 1550 net, I'd hit a plateau, discovered I was down to 20% BF, "ate more to lose" adjusting to 1700 net, lost weight again, plateaued, repinched (I always do 7pt skinfolds with the same personal trainer at least 6 weeks apart or every 8lbs lost) at 19%, increased net to 1900, lost weight again, plateaued, repinched at 18.5%, increased net to 2100, lost again, plateaued, started gaining... Then it's been all hell from there for the past year :( I'm up 20lbs but holding at about 21% BF and slowly dropping again. The next step if money were no object would be a New Leaf test to get a true BMR, but that's only going to give me a snapshot, when what I really need is ongoing analysis.

I'm a control freak, so the more comprehensive, the better.  I do like that the FitBit is a bit less obvious when worn though, but I like how BodyBugg tracks more things (sweat, body temp?), I like that FitBit is functional tracking sleep. I'm hoping either of these is going to help me once again pinpoint that perfect "sweet spot" for losing weight again. As you can see, I'm not particularly good at it, the following are my average net intakes and weight by week:

Wk 00: 1906 160.0
Wk 01: 1/2???, 162.4 (poor logging 1/2 week)
7pt w/Randy @ 160lbs: 22.2% 124.5lbs lean, 35.5lbs fat
Wk 02: 1703 159lbs
Wk 03: 2352 161.4
Wk 04: 1753 159.8
Wk 05: 1720 160.8
Wk 06: 2500 161.8
Wk 07: 1957 162
Wk 08: 2025 162 (injured rhomboid)
Wk 09: 1574 160
Wk 10: 1853 159.8
Wk 11: 1476 ???
Wk 12: 1805 161
Wk 13: 1851 162.4
Wk 14: 2378 164
Wk 15: 1193 161.8 (stomach flu)
Wk 16: 2189 161.4
Wk 17: 2008 162.8
Wk 18: 1773 164.8
Wk 19: 1589 163.8
Wk 20: 1826 161.8
Wk 21: 1952 163.6
Wk 22: 2215 165.2
Wk 23: 1893 166.8
Wk 24: 1725 163.8
Wk 25: 7/30/12 1907 166.5
Wk 26: 8/6/12 2162 167.5
Wk 27: 8/13/12 2116 166
Wk 28: 8/20/12 1588 165
Wk 29: 8/27/12 2077 166.8
Wk 30: 9/3/12 1794 165.8
Wk 31: 9/10/12 2064 166.8
7pt with Randy 21.5% @ 165lbs
Wk 32: 9/17/12 1535 166.2
Wk 33: 9/24/12 1593 167.5
Wk 34: 10/1/12 2184 169.8
Wk 35: 10/8/12 2188  170.8
Wk 36: 10/15/12 1968 169.0
Wk 37: 10/22/12 2186 170.2

^ See? I'm confused as hell.
«1

Replies

  • sgthaggard
    sgthaggard Posts: 581 Member
    Options
    I use (and need) both the Fitbit and the Polar F7. The HRM is great for logging cardio that the Fitbit won't account for correctly (cycling for example) and the Fitbit is great for logging overall activity level throughout the day that doesn't get picked up by the HRM.

    One doesn't replace the other, they complement each other.
  • HeatherRM14
    HeatherRM14 Posts: 33 Member
    Options
    Just be prepared for a shock when going from a HRM to something like a BodyBugg for your calories burned. I do boot camp workouts 3 days/week where I'd burn between 500-700 calories per workout according to my HRM - Polar F6 that I've been using for years. I got a Body MediaFit (similar technology to BodyBugg) and it said I'd burn 300 calories doing the same type of workout. Same thing for classes like Zumba and kickboxing. It was eyeopening to me to see such a drastic difference.

    I can't say I've seen any weight loss results from switching because I just switched back to using my BodyMedia because I couldn't handle the drastic change in calories burned count when I first got it. But I've decided to give it an honest effort now that I can synch it with MFP.
  • Swimgoddess
    Swimgoddess Posts: 711 Member
    Options
    My problem seems to be that I have no freaking clue what my "maintenance" is, so I can't figure where I need to be at to lose weight. I've lost weight at a 1600 net, but I've gained weight there too.

    I'm hoping one of the 24-7 wear devices will help me.
  • sgthaggard
    sgthaggard Posts: 581 Member
    Options
    I'm hoping one of the 24-7 wear devices will help me.
    It should. Between the two devices, I can pretty much tell you how many total calories I burn on any given day.
  • mz_asher
    mz_asher Posts: 87 Member
    Options
    If your wanting one for sleep like the fitbit. Go with bodymedia. The bodybugg doesny have the sleep function. I am opposite of you as I want a polar. I currently have the body bugg but I hate all day. You do get use to it but I am thinking about doing the polar along with the fitbit. Hope that helps.
  • mz_asher
    mz_asher Posts: 87 Member
    Options
    Just be prepared for a shock when going from a HRM to something like a BodyBugg for your calories burned. I do boot camp workouts 3 days/week where I'd burn between 500-700 calories per workout according to my HRM - Polar F6 that I've been using for years. I got a Body MediaFit (similar technology to BodyBugg) and it said I'd burn 300 calories doing the same type of workout. Same thing for classes like Zumba and kickboxing. It was eyeopening to me to see such a drastic difference.

    I can't say I've seen any weight loss results from switching because I just switched back to using my BodyMedia because I couldn't handle the drastic change in calories burned count when I first got it. But I've decided to give it an honest effort now that I can synch it with MFP.

    So are you saying that the body media is better at logging calories burned than an HRM?
  • Verity1111
    Verity1111 Posts: 3,309 Member
    Options
    My problem seems to be that I have no freaking clue what my "maintenance" is, so I can't figure where I need to be at to lose weight. I've lost weight at a 1600 net, but I've gained weight there too.

    I'm hoping one of the 24-7 wear devices will help me.
    That is because your maintenance changes every time you lose or gain some pounds. It may be that 1600 is maintainance whe you get down to, for example, 160 (I dont remember where I seen it thats a long list lol) and then at 150 1600 would make you gain weight instead, etc. It really depends on that and your fitness level or seeing your body fat you could have gained muscle too.
  • Swimgoddess
    Swimgoddess Posts: 711 Member
    Options
    Ok... so I sat down for the better part of the past 8 hours and geeked out on Excel to figure out W....in T......F..... was going on with my body. 82 total weeks of logging, of which 52 had average weigh-ins annotated and thus "usable data". I tracked:

    average weekly net calories
    change in net calories from the previous week (not helpful at all, incidentally)
    average weight for the week
    change in weight from previous week (the holy grail that I sorted by once done)
    average daily sodium intake (weekly figure divided by 7 or days logged)
    average weekly % of carbs
    average weekly % of fat
    average weekly % of protein
    calipered body-fat (7pt skinfold, assumed no changes the weeks between "pinches")
    Katch-McArdle BMR using last known BF% applied to weekly average weight
    difference between Katch-McArdle BMR and net caloric intake (VERY important)
    minutes per week of physical activity
    total calories burned per week during physical activity
    rate of calories burned per minute of physical activity
    number of visits to the gym each week (differentiates between when I log "work-outs" and when I log hours spent walking my kids around the zoo, museum. etc., or heavy-duty cleaning, etc.)
    whether or not the week was a ToM or PMS week (fertilityfriend app)

    No surprise stuff I found out:

    1. Average net calories during weeks I lost >2lbs/week = 1710 (# above BMR 104)
    2. Average net calories during weeks I lost >0.5lb/week = 1665 (# above BMR 66)
    3. Average net calories during weeks I maintained <.5lb change either way = 1836 (# above BMR 236)
    4. Average net calories during weeks I gained >0.5lb/week = 2020 (# above BMR 376)
    5. Average net calories during weeks I gained >2lbs/week = 1948 (# above BMR 310)
    6. My average sodium intake progressively got worse as I compared weeks I really lost, to weeks I lost, to weeks I maintained, to weeks I gained, to weeks I really gained.
    7. My average % of fat intake decreased from weeks I gained to weeks I lost
    8. The odds of my gaining weight significantly increased if I was experiencing a PMS week

    Now for the shockingly weird and disturbing:

    1. The more carbs I ate, the more weight I lost. Weeks I lost >2lbs were 46% carbs while weeks I gained >2lbs were 43%
    2. The more frequently I visited the gym, the more likely I'd gain weight.
    3. The lower-intensity the exercise (calories burned per minute), the better off I was to lose weight

    No wonder I'd been steadily gaining weight considering for the past several weeks I had my net calories set for 2020 (eat more to lose to break a plateau, right?)... *doh DOH doh DOH doh*

    Looks like I need to set my net back at 1700, start being more carb-friendly, and perhaps not "eat back" ALL my exercise calories (which I've always done). I mean, how else would you explain that I gained whenever I exercised more frequently or intensely?
  • emmeylou
    emmeylou Posts: 175 Member
    Options
    I just want to point out that stress has a huge impact on weight loss... i realize that you are obviously very data-oriented... but be careful not to obsess over it. You could end up gaining just through that alone. I have learned this myself. I was extremely stressed out for awhile and my weight loss stopped. I got a new job (finally a new source of income) and of course my stress levels went down... and i started dropping again.

    I guess I am just saying to please be careful, this is your life, not an excel document... it isn't going to be perfect. Even the nutrition information on a product isnt perfect, absolutely everything is an "estimate".
  • Swimgoddess
    Swimgoddess Posts: 711 Member
    Options
    i realize that you are obviously very data-oriented... but be careful not to obsess over it.

    I guess I am just saying to please be careful, this is your life, not an excel document... it isn't going to be perfect. Even the nutrition information on a product isnt perfect, absolutely everything is an "estimate".

    Actually, I was worrying myself sick and being stressed over what I didn't know. It felt like guessing and psuedoscience. Now that I do, I feel like I can relax. Adjusted my net to 100 over my KM BMR, adjusted my macros best I could to 50%c/20%p/30%f, now I just gotta figure out how I'm going to go about logging/only eating back a portion (what % I still have to figure out) of my calories burned. I feel like now that I've identified a pattern, I can relax.
  • Christine1110
    Christine1110 Posts: 1,786 Member
    Options
    I would pass on the Bodybugg. I have one and love it...but would love to have it sync with this site
  • ChristyRunStarr
    ChristyRunStarr Posts: 1,600 Member
    Options
    My problem seems to be that I have no freaking clue what my "maintenance" is,

    Have you checked out helloitsdan's road map post? It'll help you figure it out or at the very least put in maintenance through here for your goals and see what that says

    I use both my Fitbit and HRM
  • ChitownFoodie
    ChitownFoodie Posts: 1,562 Member
    Options
    If you are a control freak like me and want more accurate numbers, I suggest you get a BodyMedia Fit. Anyone that has one can refer you and you get 15% off. I love mine and I love the fact that it syncs with MFP. There's no need for an additional HRM. If you get the LINK model you can check on demand from your smartphone exactly where you are at for the day. When you sync to a computer it'll tell you your projected TDEE for the day, so you can plan ahead. No need for guessing.
  • Mrsbrandnewmeslimandtrim
    Mrsbrandnewmeslimandtrim Posts: 267 Member
    Options
    bump
  • Swimgoddess
    Swimgoddess Posts: 711 Member
    Options
    Have you checked out helloitsdan's road map post? It'll help you figure it out or at the very least put in maintenance through here for your goals and see what that says

    I use both my Fitbit and HRM

    Interesting read! I bookmarked it. Amazing what I miss by dropping of the boards for a year! However, his 20% off TDEE rule puts me around 1850 net, which, results-wise for me looking back at 82 weeks of data was my actual "maintenance".

    But I have to wonder how much of that data was skewed by my "eating back" ALL my exercise calories. Something to look at (like I wonder how my loss/maintenance/gain weeks would look if I just looked at gross averages? The same way I wonder how much my "high-sodium" days occurred on days I was "eating back" 800 workout calories, etc. I mean, of you're eating back your calories, you're BOUND to "go over" on sodium & macros (in grams... the %s remain pretty constant), right?
    If you are a control freak like me and want more accurate numbers, I suggest you get a BodyMedia Fit. Anyone that has one can refer you and you get 15% off. I love mine and I love the fact that it syncs with MFP. There's no need for an additional HRM. If you get the LINK model you can check on demand from your smartphone exactly where you are at for the day. When you sync to a computer it'll tell you your projected TDEE for the day, so you can plan ahead. No need for guessing.

    Noted. The trainer who pinched me yesterday was trying to sell me on it. 24hr Fitness dropped its endorsement of BodyBugg and is going to BodyMedia later this month and the trainer said the syncing with MFP was a huge plus since he's an MFPeep too :) I guess the only plus that FitBit has for me over BodyBugg/BodyMedia is that it's less obvious when worn. I hate wearing sleeves. I almost always wear tanks/camis and then when it's cold I throw on a zip-up hoodie or button-up sweater and just wear it open :P I also liked FitBit's sleep tracking function, which I heard BodyBugg doesn't really have and not sure about BodyMedia? But like pp said, I'm kinda a track-everything-humanly-possible control-freak and FitBits are apparently far less accurate.
  • Swimgoddess
    Swimgoddess Posts: 711 Member
    Options
    Ok, so I just sat down and used my avg. net column and my weekly calories burned column to figure out both my average weekly gross intake and the amount that gross intake is above my BMR in each of my 5 categories

    wks w/ >2lbs loss: 1904 gross, +298 KM BMR
    wks w/ >0.5lb loss: 1936 gross, +337 KM BMR
    wks @ maintenance or <0.5 loss or gain: 2058 gross, +457 KM BMR
    wks w/ >0.5lb gain: 2286 gross, +641 KM BMR
    wks w/ >2lbs gain: 2277 gross, +640 KM BMR

    Referencing the roadmap thread, 1904-1936 gross to lose weight is very close to his 20% off a lightly active TDEE of 1.375.

    So if my maintenance is truly 2058, and my KM BMR right now at 170lbs and 21.9% BF is 1674, then my TDEE is... (drumroll please) 1.23 whereas "lightly active" is figured at about 1.375.

    Figuring 20% off what I now believe my TDEE at (1.23/currently 2058), or 412 calorie deficit I get 1,646... but that's 28 calories below my KM BMR (too low). I'm already pretty low body-fat. Losing 0.8lbs a week might be unrealistic.

    I mean, PLEASE correct me if I'm going about this the wrong way.

    It also appears that I should never "eat back" more than 300 workout calories per day (averaged out over the week).
  • wolfchild59
    wolfchild59 Posts: 2,608 Member
    Options
    I have both a Polar HRM and a BodyMedia Fit (like the BodyBugg but tracks sleep and also now syncs with MFP). I wouldn't see one as a replacement for the other in any way. But, in the long term, I see myself ending my subscription with BMF and going back to solely using my HRM.

    Also, based on your screen name, I'm going to guess that you like to swim. Remember that you can't wear a Fitbit, BodyBugg, or BodyMedia Fit in the pool. They are water resistant, but not water proof. Meaning you can wear them in the rain or while you're getting sweaty, but you can't submerge them. So in order to track calories while you swim, you'll need to keep the HRM.

    And there are other exercises that the BB/BMF don't record well since the arms aren't as actively involved. So for those I take off my BMF then manually enter the calories burned from my HRM into the BMF site.

    So if you are a data geek (as I see that you are), I'd recommend picking up the BMF and using it along with your HRM.
  • HeatherRM14
    HeatherRM14 Posts: 33 Member
    Options
    Just a FYI on the visibility of the BodyMedia Fit....I have been wearing just the monitor tucked into the side band of my bra and the data is comparable to when I wear it on my arm. I have done it both ways for workout and non-workout days and the numbers are almost identical.
  • Swimgoddess
    Swimgoddess Posts: 711 Member
    Options
    Just a FYI on the visibility of the BodyMedia Fit....I have been wearing just the monitor tucked into the side band of my bra and the data is comparable to when I wear it on my arm. I have done it both ways for workout and non-workout days and the numbers are almost identical.

    This is awesome!!
  • magerum
    magerum Posts: 12,589 Member
    Options
    The polar product will give you a much better read on exercise, IMO. I don't see the use/need for the all day type trackers personally.

Categories