Anyone out there lost weight WITHOUT a Polar HRM?

Options
1235

Replies

  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    Options
    You could just as easily make the argument that difference in fuel efficiencies are because of variances in weight. Everything else being equal, an F350 with an empty bed uses less fuel than an F350 with a fully loaded bed. As for the F350 compared with a Prius? That's totally flawed, as they are two completely different mechanical systems, that would be like trying to compare caloric burns between a human and a cheetah. You can't necessarily use cars and fuel efficiency as a good comparison, as cars all have different mechanical systems, variances in engine size, transmission type, overall aerodynamic shape, weight, accessories (a/c will use more fuel to power, etc.) The only way to use that comparison is to use the exact same model with the exact same setup, and in that case, if the effort is exactly the same, the fuel economy will be exactly the same.
  • solpwr
    solpwr Posts: 1,039 Member
    Options
    You could just as easily make the argument that difference in fuel efficiencies are because of variances in weight. Everything else being equal, an F350 with an empty bed uses less fuel than an F350 with a fully loaded bed. As for the F350 compared with a Prius? That's totally flawed, as they are two completely different mechanical systems, that would be like trying to compare caloric burns between a human and a cheetah. You can't necessarily use cars and fuel efficiency as a good comparison, as cars all have different mechanical systems, variances in engine size, transmission type, overall aerodynamic shape, weight, accessories (a/c will use more fuel to power, etc.) The only way to use that comparison is to use the exact same model with the exact same setup, and in that case, if the effort is exactly the same, the fuel economy will be exactly the same.

    Yes. It is variances in weight. And fitness. And conditions. And rest. And what was eaten the night before. Etc, etc. The problem is, effort is never exactly the same. And efficiency. I'm sorry you disagree. You sound really confident in your point of view, I doubt I will persuade you to think differently. It really doesn't matter to me. Other people do read this stuff, and may believe that you know what you are talking about.

    Your position may be rooted in the fact that you believe HRM's to be a gimic. I'm not totally sure at how you've arrived at that conclusion. Doesn't really matter. Please know that not all HRM's are created equally. Some of them like my Polar S725, are pretty sophisticated. The device has a function called a Fitness Test. The test is based on several variables (heart rate, heart rate variability, age, body weight, gender and level of physical activity). It takes 5 minutes, done at complete rest, dark room, no sounds; I do it early in the morning just after I've woken. Essentially, it measures the R-wave to R-wave variability of your heart rate, and along with the other aforementioned factors estimates VO2 max, because it correlates to these factors.

    Over time, these tests document fitness changes. These changes in fitness also effect calorie consumption. Sorry, I've been logging avg HR, outside temperature, wind speed and direction, avg speed, and I've proved that my calorie consumption has changed over time at the same average HR. It has gone down. Someone who hasn't done the work of logging and trending and really doesn't have any interest in doing so probably would question my result and conclusions. That doesn't mean that my conclusions are wrong.

    Now you could argue that these changes are related to improvements in bio-mechanical efficiency over time. You'd be pretty right. But it all boils down to my original assertion, that fuel consumption is a function of effort (work) AND efficiency. Your essential argument as I believe it to be is that If effort is static, fuel consumption is also static. I dispute that.
  • solpwr
    solpwr Posts: 1,039 Member
    Options
    you may want to look at: http://bit.ly/c4JANN
    and http://bit.ly/c4JANN

    There is a wealth of information about training on the Polar website. These people have been pioneers in physical fitness for a very long time.
  • shannonkk
    shannonkk Posts: 192 Member
    Options
    I've had one for about 9 months and had lost all of my weight without it! I actually haven't lost much since I got it!! :laugh:

    same thing happened to me
  • krysydawn
    krysydawn Posts: 231 Member
    Options
    I have lost 56 lbs without the use of a HRM. YOU CAN DO IT!! :)
  • zapatasbloodjv
    zapatasbloodjv Posts: 50
    Options
    dude u DO NOT need one.


    I have lost over 50 lbs w/o using one or even checking my heart rate.
  • rockstarginaa
    rockstarginaa Posts: 1,529 Member
    Options
    I lost about 25lbs with it and the remaining 10lbs without it. For me, it was very helpful in the beginning and once I had a good idea of what I was burning I weaned off of it and proved I on longer need it to lose weight. It made me more aware of how many calories I was actually burning compared to what I was eating.
  • sleepytexan
    sleepytexan Posts: 3,138 Member
    Options
    here's another thought:

    Movement efficiency can be improved though training. How much of an effect this has depends on the form of exercises but generally isn't that big.

    But the situation is a lot more complex. Let's say you go running. Over time you might lose some weight, which means you use less energy to run the same distance at the same pace. On the other hand as you get better at running you might run the same distance in shorter time, which uses more energy.

    --thx to Helium

    This is why it is useful to measure watts -- your output. I can produce more watts now than when I started spinning 8 years ago, because I am experienced and more efficient at the activity. I can produce more watts and thereby maintain (typically) or even increase calories burned than when I was inefficient at the same task.

    Take riding a bike up a steep hill -- if I ride it on a fixy (well, let's say YOU ride it on a fixy, bc I would not even try that) -- anyway, that is way harder than riding it in the lowest gear of my 11-28, but will I burn more calories by being less efficient? bc I'm not used to riding the fixy? No. I'll probably just come unclipped and fall off the bike. ha.

    Thank you. You've made my point for me. Except that it is a bigger issue than you may think.

    An F350 and a Prius drive 10 miles, same road, same speed, same day. Two different fuel consumptions. Different efficiency.
    Two F350's do the same thing. Same conditions. Two different fuel consumptions. What happened? Efficiency differences.

    When I ride, many factors go into my fuel consumption. Two days, same ride. One day burn 100 calories less than the day before. Same perceived exertion. What happened? My rest that night, the temperature outside, a tail wind, etc, etc.

    So I go log my calories. Bicycling, cycling, vigorous (14-16 mph), 62 minutes: xxx calories. Wait, what?!? That's totally wrong.

    Those numbers are not even close for me. I ride in an aero position. 700/23 tires. Fitted bike.

    One, I was riding at 18 mph. How would I know to pick differently? The other, with a tail wind, I might be in the 10-12 mph equivalent range, using MFP calcs.

    This is just the argument for using HRM numbers. But to actually quantify improvements in fitness (my original supposition), an HRM is the best tool for that, in conjunction with detailed logs.

    By the way, your physics equation quantifies effort. The effort is the same. The fuel consumed to achieve the effort varies with respect to efficiency. Some people have an F350, some have a Prius.

    ok, Mr. Snarky aero-bike, I'm glad you enjoy quantifying your exact calories at every given moment in whatever manner you choose. I guess that works for you? I am happily remaining fit and never overweight for my 43rd of 43 years. Without wearing an HRM.

    and STILL, the OP's question was about weight loss.

    see ya at the top of the mountain if you can get there :)

    blessings.
  • solpwr
    solpwr Posts: 1,039 Member
    Options
    My very first sentence in my first response:

    If your goal is simply to lose weight, I would skip the HRM. You don't need it as a tool. You can count calories, and your scale is the measurement device to gauge your progress.

    I'm sure you are fit and at the right weight. That's awesome.

    I have slightly different goals than you. I'm interested in improving my performance as a primary goal. Especially downhill and Super D bicycle racing. As an enthusiast. Physical appearance is a tertiary benefit for me at this point.

    I was never trying to be snarky. I disagree with the assumption that calorie burn is the same for all effort (work). That's all. And I supplied the basis for my disagreement. That's all.

    Nothing personally against you at all.

    Hopefully you won't mind waiting at the top of the mountain for me. I'm not quite as fast as I used to be, unfortunately. :wink:

    Blessings, as you say.
  • dannylives
    dannylives Posts: 611
    Options
    I totally understand what you're saying, solpwr. This all boils down to one of two things: I can either get one or I can not get one. From reading everybody's comments I think I've come to the conclusion that it would be really cool to have one. But I still have that voice inside me that says I don't need one and will be wasting money. But then another voice says, "Dude, you'll be aware of the calories you're burning and that knowledge is what you need man!" I wanna take control of what I'm doing. Iv'e been working out for a while and haven't lost a single pound and its getting very frustrating. If I can know how many calories I'm actually burning, then I can know for sure how much calories to eat, which will lead me closer to my goal, and that is all I want, to reach my goal. I think it would be an awesome tool to have on my side. OR, I can just keep doing what Iv'e been doing and keep getting what Iv'e been getting. Hmmmm..........?
  • solpwr
    solpwr Posts: 1,039 Member
    Options
    You could just as easily make the argument that difference in fuel efficiencies are because of variances in weight. Everything else being equal, an F350 with an empty bed uses less fuel than an F350 with a fully loaded bed. As for the F350 compared with a Prius? That's totally flawed, as they are two completely different mechanical systems, that would be like trying to compare caloric burns between a human and a cheetah. You can't necessarily use cars and fuel efficiency as a good comparison, as cars all have different mechanical systems, variances in engine size, transmission type, overall aerodynamic shape, weight, accessories (a/c will use more fuel to power, etc.) The only way to use that comparison is to use the exact same model with the exact same setup, and in that case, if the effort is exactly the same, the fuel economy will be exactly the same.

    Just to beat this dead horse, I'll add:

    I use cars and fuel efficiency as a good comparison, as cars all have different mechanical systems (i.e. age,a bad knee or back, history of smoking), variances in engine size (i.e. fitness level, activity history, VO2 max), transmission type (height, lean body mass, build), overall aerodynamic shape (i.e. skinny,fat, mesomorph, technique), weight (YUP), accessories (a/c will use more fuel to power, etc.) Accessories: prior surgeries, chronic disease, STD's, infections.

    All of these contribute towards individual efficiency.

    If one's goal is to lose weight, you need a scale and a program, not an HRM.

    If you have fitness goals, this is MyFitnessPal, you may decide you want one. Saying they are totally stupid and a gimmick is just being ignorant.
  • solpwr
    solpwr Posts: 1,039 Member
    Options
    I totally understand what you're saying, solpwr. This all boils down to one of two things: I can either get one or I can not get one. From reading everybody's comments I think I've come to the conclusion that it would be really cool to have one. But I still have that voice inside me that says I don't need one and will be wasting money. But then another voice says, "Dude, you'll be aware of the calories you're burning and that knowledge is what you need man!" I wanna take control of what I'm doing. Iv'e been working out for a while and haven't lost a single pound and its getting very frustrating. If I can know how many calories I'm actually burning, then I can know for sure how much calories to eat, which will lead me closer to my goal, and that is all I want, to reach my goal. I think it would be an awesome tool to have on my side. OR, I can just keep doing what Iv'e been doing and keep getting what Iv'e been getting. Hmmmm..........?

    It would be cool to have one if you can put it in your budget. But if the problem is you've been stuck without losing even though you've been logging as accurately as you can, I would try experimenting for a few weeks. Adjust your cardio calories by changing the minutes of activity consistently for 3 weeks, one direction or the other, it really doesn't matter.

    It should do something, you will either gain or lose. If you are in famine mode, adjusting down may make little difference. Then you need to go in the opposite direction. If you are in famine mode, you may gain for a few weeks, stabilize, then begin losing. Patiently make adjustments, trial and error, and you will see long term results. If fitness is important to you (not simply being fit, but measuring your relative performance), buy the HRM.
  • killagb
    killagb Posts: 3,280 Member
    Options
    You could just as easily make the argument that difference in fuel efficiencies are because of variances in weight. Everything else being equal, an F350 with an empty bed uses less fuel than an F350 with a fully loaded bed. As for the F350 compared with a Prius? That's totally flawed, as they are two completely different mechanical systems, that would be like trying to compare caloric burns between a human and a cheetah. You can't necessarily use cars and fuel efficiency as a good comparison, as cars all have different mechanical systems, variances in engine size, transmission type, overall aerodynamic shape, weight, accessories (a/c will use more fuel to power, etc.) The only way to use that comparison is to use the exact same model with the exact same setup, and in that case, if the effort is exactly the same, the fuel economy will be exactly the same.

    Just to beat this dead horse, I'll add:

    I use cars and fuel efficiency as a good comparison, as cars all have different mechanical systems (i.e. age,a bad knee or back, history of smoking), variances in engine size (i.e. fitness level, activity history, VO2 max), transmission type (height, lean body mass, build), overall aerodynamic shape (i.e. skinny,fat, mesomorph, technique), weight (YUP), accessories (a/c will use more fuel to power, etc.) Accessories: prior surgeries, chronic disease, STD's, infections.

    All of these contribute towards individual efficiency.

    If one's goal is to lose weight, you need a scale and a program, not an HRM.

    If you have fitness goals, this is MyFitnessPal, you may decide you want one. Saying they are totally stupid and a gimmick is just being ignorant.

    Personally I agree with you. I don't feel 2 individuals of the same height and weight burn the same amount of calories doing the same activity. They may have different heart rates and breathing rates....both of these activities burn calories....if you're breathing harder and your heart is pounding faster, that is more consumption.
  • sleepytexan
    sleepytexan Posts: 3,138 Member
    Options
    You could just as easily make the argument that difference in fuel efficiencies are because of variances in weight. Everything else being equal, an F350 with an empty bed uses less fuel than an F350 with a fully loaded bed. As for the F350 compared with a Prius? That's totally flawed, as they are two completely different mechanical systems, that would be like trying to compare caloric burns between a human and a cheetah. You can't necessarily use cars and fuel efficiency as a good comparison, as cars all have different mechanical systems, variances in engine size, transmission type, overall aerodynamic shape, weight, accessories (a/c will use more fuel to power, etc.) The only way to use that comparison is to use the exact same model with the exact same setup, and in that case, if the effort is exactly the same, the fuel economy will be exactly the same.

    Just to beat this dead horse, I'll add:

    I use cars and fuel efficiency as a good comparison, as cars all have different mechanical systems (i.e. age,a bad knee or back, history of smoking), variances in engine size (i.e. fitness level, activity history, VO2 max), transmission type (height, lean body mass, build), overall aerodynamic shape (i.e. skinny,fat, mesomorph, technique), weight (YUP), accessories (a/c will use more fuel to power, etc.) Accessories: prior surgeries, chronic disease, STD's, infections.

    All of these contribute towards individual efficiency.

    If one's goal is to lose weight, you need a scale and a program, not an HRM.

    If you have fitness goals, this is MyFitnessPal, you may decide you want one. Saying they are totally stupid and a gimmick is just being ignorant.

    Personally I agree with you. I don't feel 2 individuals of the same height and weight burn the same amount of calories doing the same activity. They may have different heart rates and breathing rates....both of these activities burn calories....if you're breathing harder and your heart is pounding faster, that is more consumption.

    no, it means you're out of shape. ha.
  • killagb
    killagb Posts: 3,280 Member
    Options
    You could just as easily make the argument that difference in fuel efficiencies are because of variances in weight. Everything else being equal, an F350 with an empty bed uses less fuel than an F350 with a fully loaded bed. As for the F350 compared with a Prius? That's totally flawed, as they are two completely different mechanical systems, that would be like trying to compare caloric burns between a human and a cheetah. You can't necessarily use cars and fuel efficiency as a good comparison, as cars all have different mechanical systems, variances in engine size, transmission type, overall aerodynamic shape, weight, accessories (a/c will use more fuel to power, etc.) The only way to use that comparison is to use the exact same model with the exact same setup, and in that case, if the effort is exactly the same, the fuel economy will be exactly the same.

    Just to beat this dead horse, I'll add:

    I use cars and fuel efficiency as a good comparison, as cars all have different mechanical systems (i.e. age,a bad knee or back, history of smoking), variances in engine size (i.e. fitness level, activity history, VO2 max), transmission type (height, lean body mass, build), overall aerodynamic shape (i.e. skinny,fat, mesomorph, technique), weight (YUP), accessories (a/c will use more fuel to power, etc.) Accessories: prior surgeries, chronic disease, STD's, infections.

    All of these contribute towards individual efficiency.

    If one's goal is to lose weight, you need a scale and a program, not an HRM.

    If you have fitness goals, this is MyFitnessPal, you may decide you want one. Saying they are totally stupid and a gimmick is just being ignorant.

    Personally I agree with you. I don't feel 2 individuals of the same height and weight burn the same amount of calories doing the same activity. They may have different heart rates and breathing rates....both of these activities burn calories....if you're breathing harder and your heart is pounding faster, that is more consumption.

    no, it means you're out of shape. ha.

    Clearly, but how does that scenario NOT burn a different amount of calories? It obviously burns calories when your heart beats and you breath....so how can you discount that difference?
  • hjfischer
    hjfischer Posts: 250
    Options
    I don't use a HRM. I used to, but I did just fine without one.
  • sleepytexan
    sleepytexan Posts: 3,138 Member
    Options
    You could just as easily make the argument that difference in fuel efficiencies are because of variances in weight. Everything else being equal, an F350 with an empty bed uses less fuel than an F350 with a fully loaded bed. As for the F350 compared with a Prius? That's totally flawed, as they are two completely different mechanical systems, that would be like trying to compare caloric burns between a human and a cheetah. You can't necessarily use cars and fuel efficiency as a good comparison, as cars all have different mechanical systems, variances in engine size, transmission type, overall aerodynamic shape, weight, accessories (a/c will use more fuel to power, etc.) The only way to use that comparison is to use the exact same model with the exact same setup, and in that case, if the effort is exactly the same, the fuel economy will be exactly the same.

    Just to beat this dead horse, I'll add:

    I use cars and fuel efficiency as a good comparison, as cars all have different mechanical systems (i.e. age,a bad knee or back, history of smoking), variances in engine size (i.e. fitness level, activity history, VO2 max), transmission type (height, lean body mass, build), overall aerodynamic shape (i.e. skinny,fat, mesomorph, technique), weight (YUP), accessories (a/c will use more fuel to power, etc.) Accessories: prior surgeries, chronic disease, STD's, infections.

    All of these contribute towards individual efficiency.

    If one's goal is to lose weight, you need a scale and a program, not an HRM.

    If you have fitness goals, this is MyFitnessPal, you may decide you want one. Saying they are totally stupid and a gimmick is just being ignorant.

    Personally I agree with you. I don't feel 2 individuals of the same height and weight burn the same amount of calories doing the same activity. They may have different heart rates and breathing rates....both of these activities burn calories....if you're breathing harder and your heart is pounding faster, that is more consumption.

    no, it means you're out of shape. ha.

    Clearly, but how does that scenario NOT burn a different amount of calories? It obviously burns calories when your heart beats and you breath....so how can you discount that difference?

    sorry, my forehead just fell onto my keyboard.
  • solpwr
    solpwr Posts: 1,039 Member
    Options
    So if anyone is interested in seeing the output of a Polar HRM that has recording capability, follow the two links I've shared to my training diary.

    These are the same ride.

    http://bit.ly/o2TgmP
    920 calories
    16.4 mph
    May 2nd.

    http://bit.ly/r7oSfh
    678 calories
    17.9 mph
    Sept 7th.
    You can also change the settings to display altitude.

    Yes the average Heart Rate is down. I will tell you that I did the ride again on Sept 14th. I haven't downloaded it to my training diary yet. I rode it all out, as hard as I could go. I did it in 58 minutes flat, average speed 18.5 mph, calorie burn was 720 calories, A FULL 200 CALORIES LESS THAN 4 MONTHS AGO. Average HR I believe was low 130's, similar to the May ride.

    So what changed between then and now if my HR was the same? I ran the Fitness Test twice between then and now. My OwnIndex (Polar's estimation of VO2 max) values improved. Better fitness = more efficient fuel burning. It's easier to show you if you are really interested.
  • dannylives
    dannylives Posts: 611
    Options
    I told ya'll sleepytexan don't play around, that's my girl! Yeah right, I wish. ;)
  • killagb
    killagb Posts: 3,280 Member
    Options
    You could just as easily make the argument that difference in fuel efficiencies are because of variances in weight. Everything else being equal, an F350 with an empty bed uses less fuel than an F350 with a fully loaded bed. As for the F350 compared with a Prius? That's totally flawed, as they are two completely different mechanical systems, that would be like trying to compare caloric burns between a human and a cheetah. You can't necessarily use cars and fuel efficiency as a good comparison, as cars all have different mechanical systems, variances in engine size, transmission type, overall aerodynamic shape, weight, accessories (a/c will use more fuel to power, etc.) The only way to use that comparison is to use the exact same model with the exact same setup, and in that case, if the effort is exactly the same, the fuel economy will be exactly the same.

    Just to beat this dead horse, I'll add:

    I use cars and fuel efficiency as a good comparison, as cars all have different mechanical systems (i.e. age,a bad knee or back, history of smoking), variances in engine size (i.e. fitness level, activity history, VO2 max), transmission type (height, lean body mass, build), overall aerodynamic shape (i.e. skinny,fat, mesomorph, technique), weight (YUP), accessories (a/c will use more fuel to power, etc.) Accessories: prior surgeries, chronic disease, STD's, infections.

    All of these contribute towards individual efficiency.

    If one's goal is to lose weight, you need a scale and a program, not an HRM.

    If you have fitness goals, this is MyFitnessPal, you may decide you want one. Saying they are totally stupid and a gimmick is just being ignorant.

    Personally I agree with you. I don't feel 2 individuals of the same height and weight burn the same amount of calories doing the same activity. They may have different heart rates and breathing rates....both of these activities burn calories....if you're breathing harder and your heart is pounding faster, that is more consumption.

    no, it means you're out of shape. ha.

    Clearly, but how does that scenario NOT burn a different amount of calories? It obviously burns calories when your heart beats and you breath....so how can you discount that difference?

    sorry, my forehead just fell onto my keyboard.

    I guess that's your way of saying "I can't explain that". Thanks anyhow.

Categories