ladyoflucky13 Member

LOL. Seriously, that is a funny, but disturbing, movie. :D

I get the feeling I write posts that are too long for people to want to read...

LOL. Thank you. I try to earn my keep. :-)

OK...found a good paper about this with a sample size of 115. http://www.braydenwm.com/cal_vs_hr_ref_paper.pdf The heart rate equation here is known to only be accurate of heart rates between 90 and 150. Basically, this only refers to steady state cardio and not getting scared or anything else that may raise your heart…

I am trying to also address this. It is just very hard sometimes to tell a good burn from bad and know how much to push yourself. If I wanted zero pain, I wouldn't be able to workout at all with the heel and joint issues I have. Unfortunately, sometimes I don't realize until after a workout (or even the next morning) how…

I appreciate the responses I am getting. Thank you for taking the time to post.

For me personally, I am pretty sure it would be impossible for a running heart rate to ever be as low as a walking heart rate...however, I also don't run because of how much stress it causes my joints and heel. Is it possible for a normal weight person to have a similar heart rate fast walking vs slow running?

So, you are basically saying that if we were going by the simplistic HRM equation, it would probably be the same. It is the real life side of things that causes it to not be true? Is there any way of estimating how much these real life factors affect the equation? What is the percent error when using a HRM? Is it something…

I realize the difference is not huge and it won't make a huge difference in the grand scheme. However, I like to understand the science of my body and how things work. I know equations are just models and not always accurate, but they should be relatively consistent in their inaccuracy for a given person and set variables.…

OK....to try to make what I'm meaning clearer....here is the equation (perhaps inaccurate depending on the person, but still a model) of calories burned based on heart rate. Male: ((-55.0969 + (0.6309 x HR) + (0.1988 x W) + (0.2017 x A))/4.184) x 60 x T Female: ((-20.4022 + (0.4472 x HR) - (0.1263 x W) + (0.074 x…

I think you may be partially misunderstanding what I'm after. I realize there is inaccuracy possible in both the equation the heart rate monitor uses and my Bodybugg. I am not asking for affirmation that the numbers I've shows are exactly right. If the bodybugg shows a burn of 150, I know it may in reality be 120 or 180. I…

Unfortunately, that's true for everything. Burning more and building muscle easier. I get jealous of my husband sometimes. :smile:

So worth it. :blushing:

I do not currently have a heart rate monitor. Are you saying that heart rate monitors have different formula depending on what activity you are doing (of course steady state cardio) and therefore detect what activity you are doing and vary the formula based on that? I had no idea heart rate monitors were that advanced…

I realize over time it may change. I am basically asking if it is reasonably safe to assume for the same person and the same time period (same fitness level, weight, etc. therefore) if the calorie burn of something like cycling and elliptical should be similar if the heart rate is the same. It seems to be the consensus so…

I don't think there is an official ruling on using it on the calf. However, I have seen a lot of postings by cyclists who use it solely on their calf and claim it gives a much more accurate rate for times when your arms are in a fixed position. Most of the time, they were comparing their Bodybugg burn to a heart rate…

LOL....I thought the first activity did come with a bit of calorie burn... :laugh:

I realize that heart rate is not a direct measure of calories burned. However, my understanding is that heart rate monitors are generally used to estimate calorie burns because it is difficult to directly measure oxygen consumption in anything other than a lab setting. I do understand there is a different muscle usage…

I am referring to heart rate solely during steady state cardio activities. I realize heart rate (and heart rate monitor readings) resulting from a scare or other non-cardio activity is not related to calorie burn. I was under the impression the way that heart rate monitors are able to estimate calorie burn during cardio is…

Can you please explain your reasoning as to why that is so?

Also, I wanted to add that I realize the Bodybugg is not necessarily completely accurate. I am not so much asking about the exact accuracy of the number of calories burned so much as the relation between the calories burned for different activities (which I believe may be strongly correlated by heart rate, but that is what…

I actually just looked into my computer based calorie program I have used for a couple years and went through my notes. It seems that I have made a change in inches from the oldest measurements I can find. I wish I had measured myself at my heaviest, but I don't seem to currently have that data available. Perhaps I can dig…

Wow. That is a great personal testimonial! It seems hard to imagine weight training can make that big a difference, but that seems to be what people are experiencing. I am definitely going to have to start hitting the weights again. This is just the motivation I needed. Now I just have to figure out the weights vs cardio…

I don't think I have the measurements from that far back. I have a couple over the last two years, though, and I do see the numbers going down on paper. I just wish I saw it in the mirror and my clothing size more. Yeah, I am loving the Bodybugg so far. I have had it just under a month but I am loving it. I realize it may…

I do think I had (and still have, really) a habit of always trying to wear the most "slimming/flattering" types of clothes possible when I was heavy (darker colors, empire waist, etc.). That does probably cause the difference to show less. I suppose it also doesn't help that women's clothing sizes in general seem to vary…

Thanks for sharing. I definitely get the feeling that it takes a lot more pounds of loss when you are heavy to actually lose the dress sizes than when you get smaller. I am also not going to let it discourage me. I know I am getting healthier and there is nothing more important than that. I want a long, healthy life ahead…

It has been a while since I actually looked up which reps do what, but this is why (when I originally planned it out and saw the numbers) I liked starting our with 3-4 reps and going up. It seemed like I hit both strength and hypertrophy as I went along. Although, I am making the assumption that you can hit both ranges and…

Thanks for the link and information. I will definitely take some time to peruse this.

Trying to bold for the first time. This is the sort of experience I was hoping to get some insight into. I definitely hope that the change in size will start happening quicker as I continue to lose weight. Thank you for sharing this. Congratulations on your progress. Hopefully, I'll be following you soon. :smile:

I have definitely thought about that. Even though I am still quite heavy, I am sure I'm much healthier internally. I remember reading about how bad fatty livers are and how even morbidly obese people can fairly quickly improve it by entering a caloric deficit for a period of time. I certainly hope my liver and insides are…