Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-29-2013, 10:38 AM   #21
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danmar View Post
Sorry for the loose use of the word "hard". I should have used difficult. Yes, I agree with your analysis. My experience is that after a week or two of difficult workouts, it gets more difficult to get my heart rate elevated. This results in fewer cals indicated as burned. Obviously, I am doing the same work and am burning the same cals but if feels easier and shows less cals. Another example: if it is particularly warm or humid during my workout, my heart rate will go higher, thus indicating more cals. Doubtful.
Danmar, I was not trying to be difficult about the words 'hard" or "difficult ". Only to admit that there is a "hard" term used in materials science (the Mohs scale). Many people here are sticklers, and I did want to leave threads hanging out to get unraveled.

I think your original question is very interesting, and although I think I can reason out the answer, I am not sure. I think it is impossible that perceived exertion, or heart rate as a proxy for that, ultimately have much to do with work done or calories burned, except when comparing two bodies of equal size and efficiency. If you could shovel 2 tons of pea gravel three feet into a hopper today with one heart rate and calorie readout from your Polar, then do the same thing 2 weeks later with a different heart rate and calorie readout, it cannot be that the calories of work done by your body are different on these two days, if work is measured by a change in the physical world. Now maybe the body actually expends more calories huffing and puffing and raising its heart rate on a humid day, or when it has a fever- I have no clue.

I think this I also why I have never known anyone who easily stayed slim and in shape who paid much attention to whatever he thought his calorie (kilocalorie) burn was- though heart rate is clearly of interest when one is pushing himself to reach a level of athletic endurance. And as Alan pointed out, it lets you know when you are overdoing.

Ha
__________________

__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is online now   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 10-29-2013, 11:35 AM   #22
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
braumeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 8,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by F4mandolin View Post
The watch claims she loses about 800 calories running about 3.5 miles......ain't happening. An old rule that we used to use years ago......and I still think it's about as good as anything if you are on foot. You lose 100 calories a mile whether you are running or walking. Then with my adjustments.....if you are a good runner, in shape, you are likely losing less than 100 a mile. If you are heavier, out of shape....might be a little over 100. Now....if you are on a bike.....or rowing machine....that method is worth zilch.
I've always used the 100 calories per mile figure as a decent rough rule of thumb. I assume that my usual three miles at an easy running pace will allow me two good guilt-free beers that evening.
__________________

__________________
braumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 11:41 AM   #23
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Harrogate, UK
Posts: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by braumeister View Post
I've always used the 100 calories per mile figure as a decent rough rule of thumb. I assume that my usual three miles at an easy running pace will allow me two good guilt-free beers that evening.
My problem is the "several more" after the first two.......but by then there isn't much guilt until the next day
__________________
F4mandolin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 12:27 PM   #24
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta/Ontario/ Arizona
Posts: 3,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
Danmar, I was not trying to be difficult about the words 'hard" or "difficult ". Only to admit that there is a "hard" term used in materials science (the Mohs scale). Many people here are sticklers, and I did want to leave threads hanging out to get unraveled.

I think your original question is very interesting, and although I think I can reason out the answer, I am not sure. I think it is impossible that perceived exertion, or heart rate as a proxy for that, ultimately have much to do with work done or calories burned, except when comparing two bodies of equal size and efficiency. If you could shovel 2 tons of pea gravel three feet into a hopper today with one heart rate and calorie readout from your Polar, then do the same thing 2 weeks later with a different heart rate and calorie readout, it cannot be that the calories of work done by your body are different on these two days, if work is measured by a change in the physical world. Now maybe the body actually expends more calories huffing and puffing and raising its heart rate on a humid day, or when it has a fever- I have no clue.

I think this I also why I have never known anyone who easily stayed slim and in shape who paid much attention to whatever he thought his calorie (kilocalorie) burn was- though heart rate is clearly of interest when one is pushing himself to reach a level of athletic endurance. And as Alan pointed out, it lets you know when you are overdoing.

Ha
No problem. I still agree with your thinking. This AM I did a 45 minute elliptical workout. I did the same one last Friday. I felt much stronger today, so HR not very high (avg HR=134) and indicated cals=674. Last Friday it seemed more difficult (avg HR=144) indicated cals=797. Exact same workout. Go figure.
__________________
Danmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 12:48 PM   #25
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by W2R View Post
Once I determined that I could still lose by ignoring the calories earned and sticking with a level of food intake consistent with weight loss, it just hasn't been a concern.
^^^^ This ^^^^
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 05:05 PM   #26
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta/Ontario/ Arizona
Posts: 3,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
^^^^ This ^^^^
Sure, but my workouts are much more than losing weight.
__________________
Danmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 05:38 PM   #27
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,391
As you get more fit what used to raise your heart rate doesn't do so any more. Therefore, it would seem logical to me that you aren't burning as many calories. Years ago I remember I started using an exercise video at home that left me gasping and really raised my heart rate. A few months later it didn't raise my heart rate at all so I needed to switch monitors.

I don't use the HR function on a HR monitor (I do use a couple of different HR monitors for different purposes). However, I use a Fitbit which tells me my total calories burned per day (I can also look at it per activity as well). I also input my calories eaten to come up with my calorie deficit. I weigh in weekly at WW and find that my weight loss is usually very close to what would have been predicted by my calorie deficit. Therefore, I conclude that for me that Fitbit is quite accurate in determining calories burned.
__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 06:06 PM   #28
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Harrogate, UK
Posts: 864
And for me it comes down to this......if I stop drinking beer I lose weight.
__________________
F4mandolin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2013, 07:54 PM   #29
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,380
I have never paid any attention to calories, except as a rough gauge of my weekly activity level. A very clever doctor named Ralph Paffenbarger studied a group of Harvard alumni. Those who burned > 2500 kc/week lived longer. Calories were estimated by hours spent in various very roughly classified activities. I don't own a scale, or a monitor. I do have a concept2 ergometer that I have had and used about 2 years.

I am a naturally active person, if I never again recorded my workouts I would still weigh what I weighed 50 years ago, without very much obvious redistribution.


Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 01:12 AM   #30
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta/Ontario/ Arizona
Posts: 3,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by F4mandolin View Post
And for me it comes down to this......if I stop drinking beer I lose weight.
Totally agree. That why I haven't lost any weight recently.
__________________
Danmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2013, 01:17 AM   #31
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta/Ontario/ Arizona
Posts: 3,119
Ha: I agree activity level is key. My motto in retirement is "Have fun and burn calories". Meaning, don't be afraid to have fun and keep active. I lost about 20 lbs shortly after retirement but have gained about 7-8 lbs back. Beer is a problem as I do enjoy a few on a hot day. Cheers
__________________

__________________
Danmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:06 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.