If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
A really idiotic caloric burn rate question
Yup, same speed. The only difference that I have on the treadmill is that I walk
at a steady incline - but that doesn't appear to be factored into their calculations. Yet regular walking on hills, is ... and it computes to dang near what the *error* in the program says I have earned on the treadmill. THAT I can somewhat understand as I would think that constantly walking uphill would burn more calories than flat walking. I also remember hearing that walking supposedly burns more calories than running .... hmmm, will have to check that out. One more reason for me NOT to run. G Joyce On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:39:17 -0800, Fred wrote: Well, I'm not sure - do I understand that in both cases, the speed is 4mph? I do recall reading years ago that walking supposedly burned more calories than jogging. Walking was considered "less" efficient. Or in other words, I have no idea! On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote: Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is, please give it to me in terms I can understand. g I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a *quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add (miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill, which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15 miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated speed? I am sooooooooooo confused! g Joyce |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
A really idiotic caloric burn rate question
I e mailed em already. I use my polar monitor also when I have a doubt
about what they are getting, and then I Add an exercise, and in the description I put "walk/jog, 250 calories" so I know what I am dealing with then I add enough details in the actual entry to be sure I have the time, etc. the same. I do a lot of that for food additions too. I found that there are slight differences for instance in the counts on soy cheeses, so I put the calories into the Name of the food. Ex Yves cheese 30, or Yves cheese 35. Then it is easy for me to get it right. Like you say.. Anal. "Joyce" wrote in message ... Ahhhh, so this is a real problem then? I looked in the help section, then got sidetracked ... never got as far as the FAQ's. Thanks for checking for me! What is really odd, is that when I enter the exercise as treadmill, it does compute the calories burned to within just a few of what the treadmill says I have burned - so I just made the assumption that it was correct. AND wierder .... in the dietpower program I can enter walking on an incline (hill) for 3.5MPH but it doesn't give me that option for 4MPH ... which probably would compute to the same caloric expenditure as what I am logging as treadmill walking. And I can't get a good reading on the polar monitor to verify anything. The damn thing seems to get interference from the monitors on the treadmill, which can't be turned off. sigh Oh well, I guess even if things are logged wrong, it still will balance out eventually because the weight and food are correct (although I did have to somewhat guess at tonites dinner buffet). I went back and changed all those exercise logs, will have to now have to decide how I want to log things ... as a flat 4MPH walk, or as a mild hill at 3.5 (even though I walk that constant incline at 4MPH). Like I said, it should balance out. Maybe I should email them and ask that when they fix it to also factor in the incline for treadmills? Or hill walking at a faster pace? G I bet anal people like me drive then nuts! Joyce On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:37:50 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: I went into the help screens and read the FAQ and lo and behold they have a note that it is Wrong, and to log it as regular walking until they get it fixed.... "Lesanne" wrote in message ... ooo ooo ooo gotta go look at diet power and see.... I think there is a mistake in the program there. Gonna send em mail about it from here.... that is too strange "Joyce" wrote in message news Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is, please give it to me in terms I can understand. g I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a *quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add (miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill, which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15 miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated speed? I am sooooooooooo confused! g Joyce |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
A really idiotic caloric burn rate question
OOps, I just found out the upgrade won't allow you to add exercises any
more, because I went in to do that to be sure I had explained it right and that screen is gone. It did keep old ones I added before from the old program. I guess you will have to jockey around with time and distance to get what you want. Once you do save it as a favorite, and that will help you. "Joyce" wrote in message ... Ahhhh, so this is a real problem then? I looked in the help section, then got sidetracked ... never got as far as the FAQ's. Thanks for checking for me! What is really odd, is that when I enter the exercise as treadmill, it does compute the calories burned to within just a few of what the treadmill says I have burned - so I just made the assumption that it was correct. AND wierder .... in the dietpower program I can enter walking on an incline (hill) for 3.5MPH but it doesn't give me that option for 4MPH ... which probably would compute to the same caloric expenditure as what I am logging as treadmill walking. And I can't get a good reading on the polar monitor to verify anything. The damn thing seems to get interference from the monitors on the treadmill, which can't be turned off. sigh Oh well, I guess even if things are logged wrong, it still will balance out eventually because the weight and food are correct (although I did have to somewhat guess at tonites dinner buffet). I went back and changed all those exercise logs, will have to now have to decide how I want to log things ... as a flat 4MPH walk, or as a mild hill at 3.5 (even though I walk that constant incline at 4MPH). Like I said, it should balance out. Maybe I should email them and ask that when they fix it to also factor in the incline for treadmills? Or hill walking at a faster pace? G I bet anal people like me drive then nuts! Joyce On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:37:50 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: I went into the help screens and read the FAQ and lo and behold they have a note that it is Wrong, and to log it as regular walking until they get it fixed.... "Lesanne" wrote in message ... ooo ooo ooo gotta go look at diet power and see.... I think there is a mistake in the program there. Gonna send em mail about it from here.... that is too strange "Joyce" wrote in message news Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is, please give it to me in terms I can understand. g I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a *quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add (miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill, which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15 miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated speed? I am sooooooooooo confused! g Joyce |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
A really idiotic caloric burn rate question
what Linda said, Lee
Prairie Roots wrote in message ... Sorry Joyce, but I can't be of ANY help to you, since I don't even understand the QUESTION. This reads like the kind word problem in math that would make my eyes glaze over--if a train heading East from Chicago travels at a speed of 200 mph and a train heading South from Minneapolis travels at a speed of 100 mph, which one will arrive in Seattle last? Sure hope someone can give you the answer. Linda P On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote: Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is, please give it to me in terms I can understand. g I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a *quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add (miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill, which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15 miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated speed? I am sooooooooooo confused! g Joyce |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
A really idiotic caloric burn rate question
The train from Rhode Island? Gee, no wonder I had such a hard time
with math. I didn't even see that one coming! On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 03:15:55 -0600, Joyce wrote: LOL - the train from Rhode Island would arrive in Seattle last. G yup, one of those questions that probably doesn't have a logical explanation ... other than Lesanne did discover that it was a program error. Oh well, so I over exagerated my exercise. G I FEEL like I worked that hard, my legs tell me that I have - darn incline walking is not easy. Joyce On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:07:32 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: Sorry Joyce, but I can't be of ANY help to you, since I don't even understand the QUESTION. This reads like the kind word problem in math that would make my eyes glaze over--if a train heading East from Chicago travels at a speed of 200 mph and a train heading South from Minneapolis travels at a speed of 100 mph, which one will arrive in Seattle last? Sure hope someone can give you the answer. Linda P On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote: Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is, please give it to me in terms I can understand. g I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a *quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add (miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill, which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15 miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated speed? I am sooooooooooo confused! g Joyce Linda P 232/158/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
A really idiotic caloric burn rate question
I just added exercise without a problem - maybe because I have a new program and
have absolutely no idea what the heck I'm doing? hehehe I'm running vers. 4.0 - went to the *add diet and exercise* menu option on the toolbar at the top of the window. I used the first one, accordian playing, figuring I would never need that exercise anyway so not a biggie if I screwed something up. Then I added - test - after the name, changed the calories to something really goofy and hit *add to dictionary* ... and it did it! Joyce On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:25:15 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: OOps, I just found out the upgrade won't allow you to add exercises any more, because I went in to do that to be sure I had explained it right and that screen is gone. It did keep old ones I added before from the old program. I guess you will have to jockey around with time and distance to get what you want. Once you do save it as a favorite, and that will help you. "Joyce" wrote in message .. . Ahhhh, so this is a real problem then? I looked in the help section, then got sidetracked ... never got as far as the FAQ's. Thanks for checking for me! What is really odd, is that when I enter the exercise as treadmill, it does compute the calories burned to within just a few of what the treadmill says I have burned - so I just made the assumption that it was correct. AND wierder ... in the dietpower program I can enter walking on an incline (hill) for 3.5MPH but it doesn't give me that option for 4MPH ... which probably would compute to the same caloric expenditure as what I am logging as treadmill walking. And I can't get a good reading on the polar monitor to verify anything. The damn thing seems to get interference from the monitors on the treadmill, which can't be turned off. sigh Oh well, I guess even if things are logged wrong, it still will balance out eventually because the weight and food are correct (although I did have to somewhat guess at tonites dinner buffet). I went back and changed all those exercise logs, will have to now have to decide how I want to log things ... as a flat 4MPH walk, or as a mild hill at 3.5 (even though I walk that constant incline at 4MPH). Like I said, it should balance out. Maybe I should email them and ask that when they fix it to also factor in the incline for treadmills? Or hill walking at a faster pace? G I bet anal people like me drive then nuts! Joyce On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:37:50 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: I went into the help screens and read the FAQ and lo and behold they have a note that it is Wrong, and to log it as regular walking until they get it fixed.... "Lesanne" wrote in message ... ooo ooo ooo gotta go look at diet power and see.... I think there is a mistake in the program there. Gonna send em mail about it from here.... that is too strange "Joyce" wrote in message news Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is, please give it to me in terms I can understand. g I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a *quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add (miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill, which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15 miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated speed? I am sooooooooooo confused! g Joyce |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
A really idiotic caloric burn rate question
duh, never mind......
"Joyce" wrote in message ... I just added exercise without a problem - maybe because I have a new program and have absolutely no idea what the heck I'm doing? hehehe I'm running vers. 4.0 - went to the *add diet and exercise* menu option on the toolbar at the top of the window. I used the first one, accordian playing, figuring I would never need that exercise anyway so not a biggie if I screwed something up. Then I added - test - after the name, changed the calories to something really goofy and hit *add to dictionary* ... and it did it! Joyce On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:25:15 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: OOps, I just found out the upgrade won't allow you to add exercises any more, because I went in to do that to be sure I had explained it right and that screen is gone. It did keep old ones I added before from the old program. I guess you will have to jockey around with time and distance to get what you want. Once you do save it as a favorite, and that will help you. "Joyce" wrote in message .. . Ahhhh, so this is a real problem then? I looked in the help section, then got sidetracked ... never got as far as the FAQ's. Thanks for checking for me! What is really odd, is that when I enter the exercise as treadmill, it does compute the calories burned to within just a few of what the treadmill says I have burned - so I just made the assumption that it was correct. AND wierder ... in the dietpower program I can enter walking on an incline (hill) for 3.5MPH but it doesn't give me that option for 4MPH ... which probably would compute to the same caloric expenditure as what I am logging as treadmill walking. And I can't get a good reading on the polar monitor to verify anything. The damn thing seems to get interference from the monitors on the treadmill, which can't be turned off. sigh Oh well, I guess even if things are logged wrong, it still will balance out eventually because the weight and food are correct (although I did have to somewhat guess at tonites dinner buffet). I went back and changed all those exercise logs, will have to now have to decide how I want to log things ... as a flat 4MPH walk, or as a mild hill at 3.5 (even though I walk that constant incline at 4MPH). Like I said, it should balance out. Maybe I should email them and ask that when they fix it to also factor in the incline for treadmills? Or hill walking at a faster pace? G I bet anal people like me drive then nuts! Joyce On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:37:50 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote: I went into the help screens and read the FAQ and lo and behold they have a note that it is Wrong, and to log it as regular walking until they get it fixed.... "Lesanne" wrote in message ... ooo ooo ooo gotta go look at diet power and see.... I think there is a mistake in the program there. Gonna send em mail about it from here.... that is too strange "Joyce" wrote in message news Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is, please give it to me in terms I can understand. g I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a *quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add (miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill, which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15 miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated speed? I am sooooooooooo confused! g Joyce |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
A really idiotic caloric burn rate question
Joyce wrote I'm using the dietpower program, www.dietpower.com absolutely love it! Joyce How does that work with WW? I have an older version of that progam but got tired of logging everything in everyday. Kristine |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
A really idiotic caloric burn rate question
One track mind? (gd&r)
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:10:22 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: The train from Rhode Island? Gee, no wonder I had such a hard time with math. I didn't even see that one coming! On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 03:15:55 -0600, Joyce wrote: LOL - the train from Rhode Island would arrive in Seattle last. G yup, one of those questions that probably doesn't have a logical explanation ... other than Lesanne did discover that it was a program error. Oh well, so I over exagerated my exercise. G I FEEL like I worked that hard, my legs tell me that I have - darn incline walking is not easy. Joyce On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:07:32 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: Sorry Joyce, but I can't be of ANY help to you, since I don't even understand the QUESTION. This reads like the kind word problem in math that would make my eyes glaze over--if a train heading East from Chicago travels at a speed of 200 mph and a train heading South from Minneapolis travels at a speed of 100 mph, which one will arrive in Seattle last? Sure hope someone can give you the answer. Linda P On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote: Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is, please give it to me in terms I can understand. g I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a *quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add (miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill, which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15 miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated speed? I am sooooooooooo confused! g Joyce Linda P 232/158/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
A really idiotic caloric burn rate question
No need to duck or run. My mind's running on three tracks these days:
weight loss, home renovation, and biking. Enough to keep most personalities occupied with something other than naysaying me. On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:29:21 -0800, Fred wrote: One track mind? (gd&r) On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:10:22 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: The train from Rhode Island? Gee, no wonder I had such a hard time with math. I didn't even see that one coming! On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 03:15:55 -0600, Joyce wrote: LOL - the train from Rhode Island would arrive in Seattle last. G yup, one of those questions that probably doesn't have a logical explanation ... other than Lesanne did discover that it was a program error. Oh well, so I over exagerated my exercise. G I FEEL like I worked that hard, my legs tell me that I have - darn incline walking is not easy. Joyce On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:07:32 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote: Sorry Joyce, but I can't be of ANY help to you, since I don't even understand the QUESTION. This reads like the kind word problem in math that would make my eyes glaze over--if a train heading East from Chicago travels at a speed of 200 mph and a train heading South from Minneapolis travels at a speed of 100 mph, which one will arrive in Seattle last? Sure hope someone can give you the answer. Linda P On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote: Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is, please give it to me in terms I can understand. g I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a *quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add (miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill, which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15 miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated speed? I am sooooooooooo confused! g Joyce Linda P 232/158/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 Linda P 232/158/WW goal 145 joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Heart Rate Question 1-7-04 | Janice Kennish | Weightwatchers | 18 | January 15th, 2004 06:17 AM |
Question for those who know about heart rate | Janice Kennish | Weightwatchers | 3 | January 11th, 2004 05:55 AM |
Question about heart rate 1-7-04 | Janice Kennish | Weightwatchers | 0 | January 7th, 2004 08:48 PM |
Newbie here. Heart Rate Question. | Shaunus | General Discussion | 3 | January 4th, 2004 05:29 PM |
Heart rate during exercise question | Helen Larkin | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | November 4th, 2003 12:40 AM |