Ignoramus912:
> In article <
[email protected]>, Scott Safier wrote:
>> Marcello:
>>>
>>> "Scott Safier" <
[email protected]
rg.SPAM> wrote in message
>>>
news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> I got down to 6% this past summer by doing lots of aerobics (I bike (like 3 hours a day)) and
>>>> eating a high protein diet. very little muscle loss. Oh, and I'm 40 y/o.
>>>>
>>>> As has been pointed out, it's both diet and exercise. It's also commitment and discipline.
>>>> Things like pedometers, food diaries, (and wearable computers) provide information to help
>>>> achieve your goals, but in the end, it's really up to you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, congrats on those great numbers! Where would you reccomend getting a good pedometer?
>>
>> I tend to agree with the other poster that the value of pedometers is limited. A simple step
>> count is one source of information, but doesn't really tell you how many calories you are
>> burning.
>
> www.caloriesperhour.com
It assumes a constant mets value on a particular grade (probably flat) with no encumberance. Add leg
or arm weights, and the calories go up. Walking up hills or steps is harder (burns more calories)
than walking on flat pavement.
>>>Also, can you elaborate on your food diary. I have done this before and has some success with it
>>>but eventually lost interest when my improvments from dieting plateued. But my diary mainly
>>>consisted of me writing eveyr thing I ate down thus restricting my calories. What is the goal
>>>with the diary?
>>
>> The goal is this idea of energy balance or caloric balance. If you want to lose weight, you
>> need to burn more calories than you are consuming (and, I would argue, pay attention to the
>> type of calories you are consuming). People burn calories through exercise and movement (e.g.
>> walking more).
>
> Correct! Plus they lose calories through increased metabolism when they develop bigger or more
> active muscles due to specific training.
I think I've seen a recent study that disputes this increased metabolism thing. I might be
misremembering it though.
>> A food diary is half the energy balance equation. Basically, it is a record of how many calories
>> you are consuming -- what you are eating, size of portion, etc. To be blunt, they are a pain in
>> the ass. There are systems to make them easier, like Weight Watchers or a variety of websites.
>> There are studies (which I have at work) that show that people are very bad at keeping food
>> diaries -- people underestimate what they are eating. However, if you are serious about weight
>> loss, you need some method of understanding how many calories you are putting into your body,
>> even if you make mistakes.
>
> too boring for our OP...
>
>> The other side of the equation is how many calories you are burning.
>>
>> As I've said, I work for a company that has developed a wearable computer. I've had access to it.
>> We've done clinical studies and come up with algorithms to estimate caloric burn based upon the
>> data the computer's multiple sensors collect (and, please remember, I am under a non-disclosure
>> agreement on the specifics of such algorithms). Our technology has been tested in clinical
>> studies. So, when it tells me that I'm burning over 3000 calories a day (and I bike for 60 to 90
>> minutes per day), I tend to believe it is pretty much on target.
>
>
>> When I bike for 3 hours a day and the device tells me I'm burning over 5000 calories, I
>> believe that.
>
> and I do not...
Your math is wrong.
> Please!!!!
Your math is wrong, as are some of your assumptions.
> Assuming you normally bike for 90 minutes and spend 3000 cal, and when you nike for 180 minutes
> you spend 5,000 calories.
Your assumptions are wrong.
> Even most strenuous exercise (running at 11 mph) tends not to burn that much per hour.
> (5000-3000)/1.5 = 1,333 calories per hour.
>
> And biking is generally easier.
Well, no it is not. Biking at 11 mph is easier than running at 11mph, but I bike a lot faster
than that.
> You would have to do some fairly extreme stuff to spend that many calories.
The number is between 750-1000 calories per hour for my biking. Since I'm not being very precise
here, and you would like me to be, try these numbers.
baseline: 2200 calories per day (1440 * 1.6 mets (resting mets for moderate to heavy exerciser (I
think biking for about 3 hours qualifies) (1.8 is used for competitive athletes)))
bike 3.25 hours @ 750 calories/hour = 2450 (that's 12.5 mets, which is on the low-end (biking about
16 mph) -- at 14 mets the number is about 2730 calories)
weight lifting for .5 hours = 100 calories
total 24 hour calorie burn -- 4750
And since my average biking speed is about 20 miles per hour, and since I chose a low mets value for
my biking, that's about right.
Now, before you go "OH PLEASE" and tell us what you don't believe, maybe you should get more "data",
check your figures and validate your assumptions. Also, don't play silly games (like when I say
(beween 60 and 90 minutes, picking the 90 for your miscalculations when 60 gives a different
number)). Of course, you could apologize, but I don't expect you to.
>> adjust how much I'm eating to either maintain or lose weight.
>>
>> As I pointed out in my other post, this is all about feedback. The food diary and the
>> pedometer/wearable computer/etc simply provide information about how well you are doing. Your
>> bathroom scale also provides that feedback, as does a mirror.
>
> I lost 47 lbs using bathroom scale as my only feedback device. I ate a known amount of food every
> day and walked a known amount of time (100
> min). Plus was doing various exercises, strengt training etc. Recently started rope climbing. I
> empirically found a level where I was losing weight and yet I was not starving. I did not know
> my calorie counts and so on, but I did not want to base my decisions on fairly fuzzy numbers.
> Counting calories in food is notoriously imprecise.
People are notoriously good at dealing with fuzzy information. They satisfice, approximate, estimate
and compensate. It's what you did with your empirical tests to determine how much to eat and how
much to exercise. Other people need more help. If someone goes to a nutritionist or doctor to lose
weight, most likely they will be told to keep a food diary.
>> However, the scale provides a more coarse granularity (say, over a week or a month timeframe)
>> than does a pedometer (or wearable computer), which can provide daily (or even hourly or at any
>> minute) information.
>
> information is what you can use to make decisions. The rest is "data".
"data" is information. It is how you reason about the information that makes the difference. Some
people need more information than others.
>> As a computer geek, I tend to believe there is value in information, and sometimes more is
>> better. For weight management, information comes in two flavors -- how much you are putting in
>> and how much you are expending. Food diaries and pedometers/wearable computers/caloric burn
>> numbers on treadmills/etc are the two sides of this scale.
>
> I think that pedometers provide extra motivation for some exercisers and that is already great.
Some people find this information useful.
--
Scott
http://www.pink-triangle.org/scott AOL IM: CorwinScot YahooIM: CycleMuscle
"Stand firm for what you believe in until or unless logic or experience prove you wrong.
Remember, when the emperor looks naked the emperor is naked. The truth and a lie are not sort of
the same thing. And there's no aspect, no facet, no moment of life that can't be improved with
pizza." -- Daria
