Kettlebell for weight loss
derek1237654
Posts: 234 Member
Everyone has got to try the kettlebell swing. Just start with a light one to learn the swing and then move to a heavy one. The beauty is that you can do it in your own home, its not noisy, not expensive, wont break, burns an off the chart number of calories, is low impact and sustainable long term! Truly is the greatest all round excercise invention of all time.
1
Replies
-
Oh my god, 75 minutes of swings sounds like a goddamn nightmare.
I use kettlebells a lot, the program I am on includes 100 kettlebell swings 4-6 days a week. But dude, I have callouses from those, I can't imagine how destroyed my hands would be if I did 75 minutes straight. Not to mention my glutes and hamstrings would be screaming for mercy.
Are you doing your swings one-handed or two? And have you had a form check done?1 -
I prefer a more well rounded progressive overload program rather than spending so much time on one exercise.6
-
singingflutelady wrote: »I prefer a more well rounded progressive overload program rather than spending so much time on one exercise.
^^ same0 -
If I remember correctly, you were doing 750 a day... Still doing that?0
-
??? 75 minutes? I do 3 minutes of them as part of an overall 15 minute workout that has other exercises included. It's an app I use on my iPhone. I can't even imagine doing 750??? Maybe I read that wrong.1
-
So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...1 -
questionfear wrote: »Oh my god, 75 minutes of swings sounds like a goddamn nightmare.
I use kettlebells a lot, the program I am on includes 100 kettlebell swings 4-6 days a week. But dude, I have callouses from those, I can't imagine how destroyed my hands would be if I did 75 minutes straight. Not to mention my glutes and hamstrings would be screaming for mercy.
Are you doing your swings one-handed or two? And have you had a form check done?
It is a goddamn nightmare in a good way. Once i pick it up i cant put it down. And yes i cant do it more than 4 times a week due to hamstring and glute overload. Ive never had a form check im self taught which is bad i know but i did study intensly for months to learn it and since my back is only a little sore i feel confident im ok. Yes my hands have callouses but not too bad. I do only two handed swings. I also count using poker chips so its psychologically harder to keep track where i am which makes it easier0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me0 -
-
derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
Well, firstly an interval session of 20 minutes is way more intense than 75 minutes. You can't keep up the intensity for that long.
Secondly snatches and swings are not the same thing.
So you are basing your calorie burn from a study where they used a different exercise and a different intensity?3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Not only that, but that's a lot of breaks, I would think it's more productive to work on being able to bang out a set number of swings in a more compact period of time for the HIIT benefits.
For example, my swings goal is to do 100 one-handed swings with a 24kg bell in 5 minutes. Currently I can do 100 one-handed swings with a 16kg bell in about 5:30. Essentially it becomes a very compact endurance workout with some strength benefits.
OP, what you're describing is (sort of) a bastardized version of the 10,000 swing challenge, but IIRC that also had you mix swings with a complementary strength workout (ie, you do 5 rounds of 5 sets of swings, but between each set you do a rising number of pushups or turkish get-ups or pullups, etc). Maybe look into that as a safer way to complete what you're doing.0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
Well, firstly an interval session of 20 minutes is way more intense than 75 minutes. You can't keep up the intensity for that long.
Secondly snatches and swings are not the same thing.
So you are basing your calorie burn from a study where they used a different exercise and a different intensity?
Well as you said those bring my calorie burn down there are other things that bring it up. Like i use a 24 kg bell and they only used a 20kg max.
I am most likely heavier than most of them at 230 lbs and there burn rate for 1 hour would be over 1200 calories. Whereas im only claiming 1000 over 75 min. And this burn rate (actually a bit higher than 1000 but i wont argue that) corresponds to my weight loss.0 -
derek1237654 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
Well, firstly an interval session of 20 minutes is way more intense than 75 minutes. You can't keep up the intensity for that long.
Secondly snatches and swings are not the same thing.
So you are basing your calorie burn from a study where they used a different exercise and a different intensity?
Well as you said those bring my calorie burn down there are other things that bring it up. Like i use a 24 kg bell and they only used a 20kg max.
I am most likely heavier than most of them at 230 lbs and there burn rate for 1 hour would be over 1200 calories. Whereas im only claiming 1000 over 75 min. And this burn rate (actually a bit higher than 1000 but i wont argue that) corresponds to my weight loss.
Have you tried wearing a heart rate monitor? It won't be perfect, but it will give you a better idea of your burn. And I am guessing it will be lower than you think.0 -
derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
20 mins of snatches with 10 minutes of breaks entails:
1) A lot less rest than you're using. 3/4 of your workout is rest compared to only half of theirs.
2) A whole lot more intensity. It's not conceivable to take the level of intensity achievable with a 20 minute workout and apply it to a 70 minute workout.
So it's pretty clear that if they're achieving 20.2 calories per minute over 20 minutes with only half of that being rest, there's no way you're coming anywhere close to that with a 70 minute workout and 3/4 of that being rest.
ETA: My algorithm may be off (chime in anyone who may know) but say you're usine 1/3 the intensity they are (based on working out about 3 times longer), that's 6.73 calories per minute. Adjust that for the fact that their working sets last longer (which is why you have more overall rest time) and you're probably lucky to be burning 5 calories per minute.
Over 70 minutes, that gives you 350 calories.
Also, this assumes that you are of the same size and body composition as the participants in the study.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
20 mins of snatches with 10 minutes of breaks entails:
1) A lot less rest than you're using. 3/4 of your workout is rest compared to only half of theirs.
2) A whole lot more intensity. It's not conceivable to take the level of intensity achievable with a 20 minute workout and apply it to a 70 minute workout.
So it's pretty clear that if they're achieving 20.2 calories per minute over 20 minutes with only half of that being rest, there's no way you're coming anywhere close to that with a 70 minute workout and 3/4 of that being rest.
Yah i agree which is why i said 1000 calories min not 15000 -
derek1237654 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
Well, firstly an interval session of 20 minutes is way more intense than 75 minutes. You can't keep up the intensity for that long.
Secondly snatches and swings are not the same thing.
So you are basing your calorie burn from a study where they used a different exercise and a different intensity?
Well as you said those bring my calorie burn down there are other things that bring it up. Like i use a 24 kg bell and they only used a 20kg max.
I am most likely heavier than most of them at 230 lbs and there burn rate for 1 hour would be over 1200 calories. Whereas im only claiming 1000 over 75 min. And this burn rate (actually a bit higher than 1000 but i wont argue that) corresponds to my weight loss.
They're also not limiting themselve to 20 reps per set. Their sets are a full minute long so they are likely doing 50-60 reps per set. 50 reps with 20kg is a whole lot more intense (like, a WHOLE lot more) than 20 reps with 24kg.0 -
derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
20 mins of snatches with 10 minutes of breaks entails:
1) A lot less rest than you're using. 3/4 of your workout is rest compared to only half of theirs.
2) A whole lot more intensity. It's not conceivable to take the level of intensity achievable with a 20 minute workout and apply it to a 70 minute workout.
So it's pretty clear that if they're achieving 20.2 calories per minute over 20 minutes with only half of that being rest, there's no way you're coming anywhere close to that with a 70 minute workout and 3/4 of that being rest.
Yah i agree which is why i said 1000 calories min not 1500
You're looking at 350 to 500 on a good day.
ETA and I'm being generous.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
Well, firstly an interval session of 20 minutes is way more intense than 75 minutes. You can't keep up the intensity for that long.
Secondly snatches and swings are not the same thing.
So you are basing your calorie burn from a study where they used a different exercise and a different intensity?
Well as you said those bring my calorie burn down there are other things that bring it up. Like i use a 24 kg bell and they only used a 20kg max.
I am most likely heavier than most of them at 230 lbs and there burn rate for 1 hour would be over 1200 calories. Whereas im only claiming 1000 over 75 min. And this burn rate (actually a bit higher than 1000 but i wont argue that) corresponds to my weight loss.
They're also not limiting themselve to 20 reps per set. Their sets are a full minute long so they are likely doing 50-60 reps per set. 50 reps with 20kg is a whole lot more intense (like, a WHOLE lot more) than 20 reps with 24kg.
Obviously you didnt read the study. They gave an example of a person doing 6 reps in 15 seconds followed by 15 sec of rest which is 12 reps a minute. So that is 38 reps per minute less than your lowest estimate. Dude just read the study dont just pull numbers out of thin air.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
20 mins of snatches with 10 minutes of breaks entails:
1) A lot less rest than you're using. 3/4 of your workout is rest compared to only half of theirs.
2) A whole lot more intensity. It's not conceivable to take the level of intensity achievable with a 20 minute workout and apply it to a 70 minute workout.
So it's pretty clear that if they're achieving 20.2 calories per minute over 20 minutes with only half of that being rest, there's no way you're coming anywhere close to that with a 70 minute workout and 3/4 of that being rest.
ETA: My algorithm may be off (chime in anyone who may know) but say you're usine 1/3 the intensity they are (based on working out about 3 times longer), that's 6.73 calories per minute. Adjust that for the fact that their working sets last longer (which is why you have more overall rest time) and you're probably lucky to be burning 5 calories per minute.
Over 70 minutes, that gives you 350 calories.
Also, this assumes that you are of the same size and body composition as the participants in the study.
Dude what u are saying is so off. If i worked at 1/3 the intensity i would have a heart rate that was around my resting heart rate which clearly i dont.0 -
I can't access the study, but there are some articles summarizing the findings out there. Someone might find it interesting: http://www.yourhpservices.com/blog/2012/04/are-kettlebells-more-effective-than-treadmills/1
-
diannethegeek wrote: »I can't access the study, but there are some articles summarizing the findings out there. Someone might find it interesting: http://www.yourhpservices.com/blog/2012/04/are-kettlebells-more-effective-than-treadmills/
Doesnt apply to me because i use a 24 kg kettlebell.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
20 mins of snatches with 10 minutes of breaks entails:
1) A lot less rest than you're using. 3/4 of your workout is rest compared to only half of theirs.
2) A whole lot more intensity. It's not conceivable to take the level of intensity achievable with a 20 minute workout and apply it to a 70 minute workout.
So it's pretty clear that if they're achieving 20.2 calories per minute over 20 minutes with only half of that being rest, there's no way you're coming anywhere close to that with a 70 minute workout and 3/4 of that being rest.
Yah i agree which is why i said 1000 calories min not 1500
You're looking at 350 to 500 on a good day.
ETA and I'm being generous.
Looks about right to me, but I'm bad at math so I'll show my work for others to correct me: The MET value for kettlebell swings seems to be about 9.8 based on a quick google search. So we take MET (9.8) x weight in kg (OP, I think you said you were around 250 pounds (113 kg), but I could be misremembering?) x time (25 minutes). 9.8 x 113 x 25 = 553 calories burned.0 -
I dont understand why someone would dispute my level of burn as it corresponds very closely with my weight loss. I just dont get it.0
-
but a study using a different exercise does apply to you?2
-
derek1237654 wrote: »I dont understand why someone would dispute my level of burn as it corresponds very closely with my weight loss. I just dont get it.
Then why would you post a thread yesterday asking how many calories are burned during your kettlebell workout if you are confident in your estimates already and your weight loss patterns support that?3 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »So fifty sets means 49 breaks. With the average break being about one minute (some 45 secs, some over a minute) and one of those breaks being about 5 minutes, that's about 54 minutes of breaks.
Since it takes you 70 minutes to complete the workout, that leaves 16 minutes that you're actually swinging a kettlebell.
16 minutes / 1000 reps x 60 secs = about 1 second per rep or 20 seconds per set
You really sure that 16 minutes of kettlebell swings is burning upwards of 1,000 calories??
Color me skeptical but...
Well it is actually minimum 25 min of actual work ( 30 sec per set × 50 sets) and the remaining time is rest. I use the ACE snatch test study as a guideline where they burned 20.2 calories per minute in 20 min of snatches where 10 of those minutes where rest. So 1000 calories sounds pretty reasonable to me
20 mins of snatches with 10 minutes of breaks entails:
1) A lot less rest than you're using. 3/4 of your workout is rest compared to only half of theirs.
2) A whole lot more intensity. It's not conceivable to take the level of intensity achievable with a 20 minute workout and apply it to a 70 minute workout.
So it's pretty clear that if they're achieving 20.2 calories per minute over 20 minutes with only half of that being rest, there's no way you're coming anywhere close to that with a 70 minute workout and 3/4 of that being rest.
Yah i agree which is why i said 1000 calories min not 1500
You're looking at 350 to 500 on a good day.
ETA and I'm being generous.
Looks about right to me, but I'm bad at math so I'll show my work for others to correct me: The MET value for kettlebell swings seems to be about 9.8 based on a quick google search. So we take MET (9.8) x weight in kg (OP, I think you said you were around 250 pounds (113 kg), but I could be misremembering?) x time (25 minutes). 9.8 x 113 x 25 = 553 calories burned.
Well you are still burning a large amount of calories between sets which is why it is a HIIT workout and dont forget the anaerobic burn0 -
burning a large amount of calories during rest... um ok0
-
derek1237654 wrote: »I dont understand why someone would dispute my level of burn as it corresponds very closely with my weight loss. I just dont get it.
Because weight loss comes from CICO, not how long/often you use a kettlebell.3 -
notreallychris wrote: »derek1237654 wrote: »I dont understand why someone would dispute my level of burn as it corresponds very closely with my weight loss. I just dont get it.
Because weight loss comes from CICO, not how long/often you use a kettlebell.
Yes of course it comes from CICO which is why food and activity are both taken into account0 -
derek1237654 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »I can't access the study, but there are some articles summarizing the findings out there. Someone might find it interesting: http://www.yourhpservices.com/blog/2012/04/are-kettlebells-more-effective-than-treadmills/
Doesnt apply to me because i use a 24 kg kettlebell.
An 8kg difference isn't that huge. Certainly not enough to dismiss the whole study.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions