I call BS
Replies
-
You are likely in better shape than your FT7 knows actually.
Best walking and running burn estimates are per weight and pace - that's it. In studies, that's 4% of measured, much more accurate than HRM.
And if Fitbit got the distance pretty good, it's more accurate.
Your FT7 on the other end, being a cheaper Polar with no VO2max figure that is relating to your fitness level, has to calculate it somehow.
So it takes your BMI (height & weight) and decides if it's from good to bad (age & gender), and that dictates your VO2max.
In other words - bad BMI, bad fitness level. Good BMI, assumed good fitness level.
Both are bad assumptions, but generally can fit in majority of cases.
Fact is though, you can get in to cardio shaper much faster than you can lose weight. Actually moving higher weight forces it on you faster.
So you are indeed more fit - your lungs can now take in more air with less breathes and your heart can now beat less to pump the exact same amount of oxygen to your muscles required to burn the same calories, if weight stayed the same.
But the HRM doesn't realize you are that fit yet, so it assumes the lower HR it sees means an easier workout, so smaller calorie burn.
Actually, it's more though.
You can test your HRM to see how incorrect it is.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
That's very interesting, I have lost weight, am noticing I'm getting stronger and have to push myself harder to get the same amount of burn, or well according to the HRM. I bought the Polar FT7 with HRM because I do a lot of Yoga and I just didn't believe the database that said 100 kcal for 20 minutes of Vinyasa Yoga, when I used the database my weight loss was up and down because I was basing my daily intake on the estimates. I think I'm better off concerning weight loss with an underestimate of burned calories, than an overestimate from the database, when it's not walking or running. I thought that if you get stronger you burn less calories because it's easier for your body. I'm losing between 0,5 kg to 1 kg a week.
I've become overweight in the past 7 years, struggling with medication and PTSS, but before that I used to have my own horse(s) and ride daily - dressage. I'm going to check out the calorie burn estimate. Thank you so much for your answer
0 -
Are you holding onto something with your wearing arm if it's a bracelet? It may not then, be logging the movement if it's not seeing an elevation change or that typical up-down movement associated with our arms moving when we walk naturally. Same may be true with an elliptical.
Nope. It's a Fitbit One that I've worn in the exact same place since I purchased it to replace my old Ultra (clipped to waistband or pants pocket). It seemed to record VAM just fine up until a few months ago, and it will still (occasionally) keep the VAM after the MFP sync. I think it's a translation/overwrite issue, but no one at either MFP or Fitbit seems to want to explain it.0 -
That's very interesting, I have lost weight, am noticing I'm getting stronger and have to push myself harder to get the same amount of burn, or well according to the HRM. I bought the Polar FT7 with HRM because I do a lot of Yoga and I just didn't believe the database that said 100 kcal for 20 minutes of Vinyasa Yoga, when I used the database my weight loss was up and down because I was basing my daily intake on the estimates. I think I'm better off concerning weight loss with an underestimate of burned calories, than an overestimate from the database, when it's not walking or running. I thought that if you get stronger you burn less calories because it's easier for your body. I'm losing between 0,5 kg to 1 kg a week.
I've become overweight in the past 7 years, struggling with medication and PTSS, but before that I used to have my own horse(s) and ride daily - dressage. I'm going to check out the calorie burn estimate. Thank you so much for your answer
The energy required (which means calories) to lift that 20 lb dumbbell off the floor free from gravity is the same whether male or female, lots or little muscle, young or old, ect.
Only if you hold it out in front as a lever does the equation change for arm length. Straight up, nope.
So if stronger it's easier, because the load is shared by many muscles, compared to someone without many.
But it's the same load, same energy expended.
With lots of muscle, it's not even work barely and fat as energy source is fine, heart rate barely rises.
If little muscle, it's a big workout, heart pounds to get oxygen to use some fat, but more carbs is used, heart rate really rises.
Same burn.
That's why HR as indicator of calorie burn is useless without having good estimates of VO2max and HRmax. And even then there are limitations for that connection and resulting formula. Must be steady-state aerobic, same HR for 2-4 min. Constantly changing HR and anaerobic (lifting and sprints) is wrong and inflated results to some degree.
So yes, you do have to push yourself harder to compensate for less weight.
As far as calories is concerned though, you don't have to make the HR match old out of shape you.
Now, for the heart itself to get a certain type of workout, yes, you do need to match HR. At which pace you'll be burning more than when you weighed more.
And at that effort body muscles will be getting a better workout. Cardio system improves faster than muscular system. It's why it's easier for people to get in shape faster and cause injury before muscles/tendons/ligaments are ready for the increased workload.
If HRM doesn't reflect that fact, it's way off for you.
Comparing past records if you have them is indeed interesting, especially if you tracked pace and distance, ect.0 -
I've been having issues with my Fitbit regarding VAM (Very Active Minutes) since last fall. I'll put in a good 45 minutes of pretty intense elliptical work, the Fitbit site shows all of it as VAM, then after it syncs with MFP -- BAM! Zero minutes.
Other than that, everything else seems pretty accurate. It was a little frustrating at first, but since *I* know how hard I've been working it really doesn't bother me much any more. I rarely eat back the Fitbit calorie adjustments anyway, and use it mostly for motivation at this point.
Fitbit merely syncs to MFP the daily burn, MFP is making adjustments to their daily burn estimate based on that.
Nothing regarding that goes back to Fitbit to change the workout VAM.
Or.
Are you manually making a workout in MFP?
Because that would indeed then sync over to Fitbit, replace what it had as calorie burn amounts, and that then decides if VAM or not.
For non-step based activity to get VAM, it must be 6 x resting calorie burn.
And if you logged in MFP, it syncs over to Fitbit as non-step based. So steps and miles are retained, but calories is replaced, and you may not be burning enough on the elliptical now to get VAM time.
The Fitbit calorie adjustment by the way isn't the exercise burn, it's the difference between what MFP thought you'd burn with no exercise based on your choice of work activity level.
The Fitbit adjustment is merely letting MFP use a much more accurate value for daily burn.
Then it takes off the 500 calories so you eat less.
Don't imagine you are doing yourself any favors long term by making the deficit bigger.
Why else would you be using a device that helps to be more accurate for daily burn, than to benefit from it? But then you don't.0 -
Are you holding onto something with your wearing arm if it's a bracelet? It may not then, be logging the movement if it's not seeing an elevation change or that typical up-down movement associated with our arms moving when we walk naturally. Same may be true with an elliptical.
Nope. It's a Fitbit One that I've worn in the exact same place since I purchased it to replace my old Ultra (clipped to waistband or pants pocket). It seemed to record VAM just fine up until a few months ago, and it will still (occasionally) keep the VAM after the MFP sync. I think it's a translation/overwrite issue, but no one at either MFP or Fitbit seems to want to explain it.
Did you lose weight a few months ago?
Then your daily BMR burn went down.
VAM is based on the exercise calorie burn being 6 x your resting or BMR calorie burn.
If you lost weight and BMR went down, but calorie burn is the same or less because you weigh less (which it should), then rightfully you are not doing VAM time anymore.
Gotta get your intensity up to counter lost weight.0 -
I've been having issues with my Fitbit regarding VAM (Very Active Minutes) since last fall. I'll put in a good 45 minutes of pretty intense elliptical work, the Fitbit site shows all of it as VAM, then after it syncs with MFP -- BAM! Zero minutes.
Other than that, everything else seems pretty accurate. It was a little frustrating at first, but since *I* know how hard I've been working it really doesn't bother me much any more. I rarely eat back the Fitbit calorie adjustments anyway, and use it mostly for motivation at this point.
It changed because you logged the activity on MFP. The "very active" (and moderately active, etc) minutes are based on the calorie burn per minute. For fitbit tracked activity--the calorie burn estimate is based on how much and how fast you move each minute as well as your stats. I notice on the elliptical my One credits it similar to walking or running at whatever speed I move (not sure whether that is accurate though). When you logged it, the fitbit estimated calorie burn is replaced by MFP's database. Since you lost those very active minutes, the average calorie burn per minute was lower than what fitbit had estimated. With the elliptical, I am not sure as the only option on MFP is a generic "elliptical trainer"--like any cardio machine people can exercise lightly, moderately or vigorously on the elliptical depending what they put into it. Hmmm.... Looking at the MFP estimate, it does credit a pretty high calorie burn, it credited me with 10 calories a minute which would count as "very active for me" (I need to burn 6 or more calories a minute). For logged activity, the calorie burn per minutes needs to be at least 6 times your resting calorie burn. I generally log my heart rate monitor calorie burn for the elliptical so wasn't sure how MFP credited it, but from what I saw it seems like it should be very active minutes unless you changed the calorie burn?0 -
The energy required (which means calories) to lift that 20 lb dumbbell off the floor free from gravity is the same whether male or female, lots or little muscle, young or old, ect.
Only if you hold it out in front as a lever does the equation change for arm length. Straight up, nope.
So if stronger it's easier, because the load is shared by many muscles, compared to someone without many.
But it's the same load, same energy expended.
With lots of muscle, it's not even work barely and fat as energy source is fine, heart rate barely rises.
If little muscle, it's a big workout, heart pounds to get oxygen to use some fat, but more carbs is used, heart rate really rises.
Same burn.
That's why HR as indicator of calorie burn is useless without having good estimates of VO2max and HRmax. And even then there are limitations for that connection and resulting formula. Must be steady-state aerobic, same HR for 2-4 min. Constantly changing HR and anaerobic (lifting and sprints) is wrong and inflated results to some degree.
So yes, you do have to push yourself harder to compensate for less weight.
As far as calories is concerned though, you don't have to make the HR match old out of shape you.
Now, for the heart itself to get a certain type of workout, yes, you do need to match HR. At which pace you'll be burning more than when you weighed more.
And at that effort body muscles will be getting a better workout. Cardio system improves faster than muscular system. It's why it's easier for people to get in shape faster and cause injury before muscles/tendons/ligaments are ready for the increased workload.
If HRM doesn't reflect that fact, it's way off for you.
Comparing past records if you have them is indeed interesting, especially if you tracked pace and distance, ect.
Learning more everyday so this accurate system of OwnCal is only accurate if you are as out of or in shape as they think you are? I'm actually trying to focus more on building muscle and flexibility to support my ligaments and joints and do low impact cardio, so I can increase cardio as my body gets stronger - I'm trying to prevent injury and I have learned about my limits in physical rehabilitation a year ago (no running or cycling with resistance because of the knees) - and how not to ignore my body. Pushing myself harder in my case is by example going fuller into my Yoga poses that require strength and/or flexibility because I can after building up to it, and not so much about increasing HR. I also do Kettlebell training twice a week, Tae Bo Cardio once a week. Yoga 7 times a week (of which 3 times higher intensity added). My Blackroll myofascial massage daily.
I looked up how to calculate the V02max online, and according to the calculation I'm in the "good" zone. I'm not sure how to adjust for that on the HRM measurements, doesn't help English is my second language
will do another attempt re-reading the other topic tonight. 0 -
Good gravy, people -- I'm not an idiot (not that anyone came right out and called me one), but:
No, I have not lost weight -- I have been maintaining for over two years.
Yes, I use a HRM to overwrite intense exercise -- I have a Polar FT7 that I have been using with my Fitbit from Day 1.
Absolutely NOTHING has changed about my workouts or how I record them. Nothing.
There are days that I do the Same. Exact. Thing. But the results that show up on Fitbit's site are not consistent. I can understand the overwrite of the calorie burn for the time entered, but there is simply no reason for VAMs to just... disappear.
As I said before, I don't care that they disappear -- I *know* how intensely I'm working out -- but this can be a frustrating problem, and I'd hate to see a new user give up on it because no one can explain the inconsistency.0 -
Good gravy, people -- I'm not an idiot (not that anyone came right out and called me one), but:
No, I have not lost weight -- I have been maintaining for over two years.
Yes, I use a HRM to overwrite intense exercise -- I have a Polar FT7 that I have been using with my Fitbit from Day 1.
Absolutely NOTHING has changed about my workouts or how I record them. Nothing.
There are days that I do the Same. Exact. Thing. But the results that show up on Fitbit's site are not consistent. I can understand the overwrite of the calorie burn for the time entered, but there is simply no reason for VAMs to just... disappear.
As I said before, I don't care that they disappear -- I *know* how intensely I'm working out -- but this can be a frustrating problem, and I'd hate to see a new user give up on it because no one can explain the inconsistency.
Wow, that's harsh! Noone was implying you are an idiot, I am not sure where you get that. In your post you did not mention that you were logging your heart rate monitor calorie burn. I typically find that if I log my heart rate monitor burn even for some very vigorous activity (usually circuits or intervals--that was more a weakness of my HRM), I lose very active minutes. I always have, possibly because my heart rate tends to be lower and I have to work hard to get and keep it elevated. I only just learned from a Fitbit staff member that the standard was at least 6 times my resting calorie burn to see very active minutes. After learning that, I could see some of my workouts that were discredited after logging, the average calorie burn would be a little shy of that standard and adding an extra calorie burned per minute did result in very active minutes. I am not sure whether the standard for very active minutes has changed or not, or whether my fitness improved. It use to be a little easier to earn them (probably too easy though). As did logging the activity from the exercise database, which since the post I replied to didn't mention a HRM, I thought you logged from the MFP database--and saw MFP only offers on intensity option for the elliptical. If you think something is different on Fitbit's end, maybe try emailing customer service if you haven't already.0 -
Good gravy, people -- I'm not an idiot (not that anyone came right out and called me one), but:
No, I have not lost weight -- I have been maintaining for over two years.
Yes, I use a HRM to overwrite intense exercise -- I have a Polar FT7 that I have been using with my Fitbit from Day 1.
Absolutely NOTHING has changed about my workouts or how I record them. Nothing.
There are days that I do the Same. Exact. Thing. But the results that show up on Fitbit's site are not consistent. I can understand the overwrite of the calorie burn for the time entered, but there is simply no reason for VAMs to just... disappear.
As I said before, I don't care that they disappear -- I *know* how intensely I'm working out -- but this can be a frustrating problem, and I'd hate to see a new user give up on it because no one can explain the inconsistency.
Might reread those responses above, we covered several basis since you did not give enough facts up front to totally hone in on your issue directly. Sorry for trying to hit the possibilities that don't apply. Perhaps others that also read topics were educated though, hence the benefit of a forum educating others.
With no weight change, only age change, BMR and therefore resting calories has lowered - if calorie burn stayed the same for a workout per time, then actually the opposite effect would have happened - more VAM time.
So what you are saying is twofold.
First, Fitbit when it thinks the steps are walking/jogging (depending on impact) looks at calorie burn AND pace, and calorie burn can actually be less than 6 x resting as long as pace is fast enough, about 4 mph.
Second, when Fitbit receives a manual workout overwrite (which MFP sync or Fitbit manual workout create is), the pace is out the window even for walking/jogging activities, and you must meet 6 x resting calorie burn to earn VAM time.
Since nothing has changed, your VAM from first point always had the possibility of being wiped out by the second point.
But if VAM time even after the synced workouts wiped out Fitbit's estimates has now changed since last fall - please provide the following info from some past records.
What is current calorie burn you are logging and for how much time for elliptical?
Looking at some workouts prior to fall when you saw the change, what was the manually added calorie burn and time of workout when you did get VAM time?
And just so we are clear here to your comment of "there is simply no reason for VAMs to just ... disappear."
There are 2 very good reasons.
1st as mentioned above.
2nd they changed the limit, which they don't state in doc's anywhere precisely because they can change it. But it's very simple to figure out.0 -
Learning more everyday so this accurate system of OwnCal is only accurate if you are as out of or in shape as they think you are? I'm actually trying to focus more on building muscle and flexibility to support my ligaments and joints and do low impact cardio, so I can increase cardio as my body gets stronger - I'm trying to prevent injury and I have learned about my limits in physical rehabilitation a year ago (no running or cycling with resistance because of the knees) - and how not to ignore my body. Pushing myself harder in my case is by example going fuller into my Yoga poses that require strength and/or flexibility because I can after building up to it, and not so much about increasing HR. I also do Kettlebell training twice a week, Tae Bo Cardio once a week. Yoga 7 times a week (of which 3 times higher intensity added). My Blackroll myofascial massage daily.
I looked up how to calculate the V02max online, and according to the calculation I'm in the "good" zone. I'm not sure how to adjust for that on the HRM measurements, doesn't help English is my second language will do another attempt re-reading the other topic tonight.
My (now discontinue) Polar F11 had Owncal. It has a built in test to estimate vo2 max, I thought that was part of Owncal? Anyway this test, you do it after a rest day and before you have any caffeine ideally (per instructions). You lay still while it runs the test and it automatically enters your resting heart rate and an estimated vo2max. So if yours is similar (I know other models do this, but not some of the less expensive models), it is probably already working with a vo2max estimate. I am not sure how accurate this method is, I've tried some active tests to estimate my vo2max and always come up with a lower estimate than my Polar comes up with (about 5 points lower, Polar will credit me with 45-48 vo2max and the other methods 35-40). Anyway, in my Polar you enter a number not "good", but the test gives you a description it tells me I am "elite" (which I am not, I have decent aerobic fitness but am not an endurance athlete). It is under a second layer of optional settings in my watch--that level allows me to enter a vo2max number and a maximum heart rate if I want to overwrite what Polar had estimated. Maybe I am not clear what owncal is, my watch does have it but if it doesn't include the vo2max estimate it may be a feature I never really used. I mainly use my F11 for water exercise now and use a bluetooth Polar H7 and Digifit (and my phone) for dry land workouts now, so this is just from memory.0 -
Learning more everyday so this accurate system of OwnCal is only accurate if you are as out of or in shape as they think you are? I'm actually trying to focus more on building muscle and flexibility to support my ligaments and joints and do low impact cardio, so I can increase cardio as my body gets stronger - I'm trying to prevent injury and I have learned about my limits in physical rehabilitation a year ago (no running or cycling with resistance because of the knees) - and how not to ignore my body. Pushing myself harder in my case is by example going fuller into my Yoga poses that require strength and/or flexibility because I can after building up to it, and not so much about increasing HR. I also do Kettlebell training twice a week, Tae Bo Cardio once a week. Yoga 7 times a week (of which 3 times higher intensity added). My Blackroll myofascial massage daily.
I looked up how to calculate the V02max online, and according to the calculation I'm in the "good" zone. I'm not sure how to adjust for that on the HRM measurements, doesn't help English is my second language will do another attempt re-reading the other topic tonight.
My (now discontinue) Polar F11 had Owncal. It has a built in test to estimate vo2 max, I thought that was part of Owncal? Anyway this test, you do it after a rest day and before you have any caffeine ideally (per instructions). You lay still while it runs the test and it automatically enters your resting heart rate and an estimated vo2max. So if yours is similar (I know other models do this, but not some of the less expensive models), it is probably already working with a vo2max estimate. I am not sure how accurate this method is, I've tried some active tests to estimate my vo2max and always come up with a lower estimate than my Polar comes up with (about 5 points lower, Polar will credit me with 45-48 vo2max and the other methods 35-40). Anyway, in my Polar you enter a number not "good", but the test gives you a description it tells me I am "elite" (which I am not, I have decent aerobic fitness but am not an endurance athlete). It is under a second layer of optional settings in my watch--that level allows me to enter a vo2max number and a maximum heart rate if I want to overwrite what Polar had estimated. Maybe I am not clear what owncal is, my watch does have it but if it doesn't include the vo2max estimate it may be a feature I never really used. I mainly use my F11 for water exercise now and use a bluetooth Polar H7 and Digifit (and my phone) for dry land workouts now, so this is just from memory.
I'll piggy back on this since I forgot to respond.
That OwnCal is indeed their name for VO2max, they say close, but since an estimate they don't totally claim it's the same. Though the stat they fill in from the test is indeed called VO2max.
With the resting HR, proper selection of athletic level you pick too, it's actually pretty decent in the study it came from, until you get to higher end of VO2max, then it starts to lose it. If you have tested HRmax, even better. Polar does 220-age and a HR variability thing that actually doesn't rate well in studies.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16168867
As to estimating it, that formula that Polar uses in their self-test was actually more accurate than sub-maximal VO2max tests you could take.
Now, you could also test to the max, if fitness warrants it.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/testing-hrmax-vo2max-with-max-treadmill-test-643927
So indeed, OwnCal only as good as the figures they use. If I input tested VO2max and HRmax, it is indeed really close to results of VO2max test formula for calorie burn.
Which you could actually do yourself if you were doing enough cardio to make a big difference.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales/view/getting-your-personalized-calorie-burn-formula-6636250 -
I tried calculating without HRM (I knew my lowest HR was 66, but in fact it has now become 60 I found out using the fit test on the RS300X) using this one online http://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/vo2max and got 37 - which is the same number on the RS300X (I'm borrowing one temporarily to test the differences). My HRmax is187 (tested during cardio) though 183 is the recommended standard. The site recommends me to reach 40 V02max, and in all the other health comparison V02max 37 is in the "good" range just like RS300X says.
I checked out your blog and I will have to chew on that, I can't run (yet), but especially not on treadmills I'll lose my balance. I usually walk at 4.3 - 4.8 mph and varying degrees, the machine has a HRM build in so it keeps me in my wanted heart rate zone. The information is very well constructed!
Out of curiosity I tried a few different things with the FT7 and the RS300x and Fitbit.
For the Kettlebell workout it's kind of interval training, cardio, strength and abs combined with 1 minute breaks in between sets.
FT7 : 400 kcal, RS300X : 494 kcal. Later in the afternoon I tried a short walk with my cats running along, and the score for 20 minutes was FT7: 80 kcal, R300X: 101 kcal and Fitbit: 115 kcal.
@Kimsied I read the H7 also has the option to do a self test for V02max in combination with the app?0 -
I didn't do the site, but considering Polar is using a public study that others could use, excellent chance. I include it in my spreadsheet for seeing one estimate of VO2max too.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16168867
Also, if you saw 187 and that was maximal effort for short spurt of time not after a long workout, that is HRmax.
If 183 is the result of 220-age, that's not a recommendation, that's a guess.
Your HRmax is what it is, unlike LT threshold or VO2max - it ain't going to improve.
If you want some personalized HR zones to maximize your workouts for what you can do, try this.
www.calculatenow.biz/sport/heart.php?
Despite them using the past fad name of fat-burning zone, more correctly called the Active Recovery zone for much longer, it's still useful site. And since you have known restingHR and HRmax, you have more accurate zones.
My first VO2max test was walking only, I think 25% incline and 4 mph. So you can indeed get your HR up high, but indeed, just like my test package wasn't calibrated for me to run, that blog test isn't calibrated for steeper inclines and walking only to give VO2max results.
And your results are in the range before it started losing accuracy for the formula, I think it was mid 40's for guys and lower 40's for gals where it lost it.0 -
Thank you so much for the site! and all the information I will ask the help of my physical therapist to determine the HRmax again, to be certain! Now I am having some doubts about the 187 because I have seen the HRM reach 193 once, after a very short but intense set of cardio pushing myself as hard as I could on the last moves. Generally I don't look at the watch so I only see the averages. 0
-
In that case, I'd suggest your HRmax is 193 to 198.
Since you gotta be totally prepared for a max effort and it takes some recovery after, no need taking away from general workouts.0
