A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

Did you get any kind of answer from them? I emailed them this evening (just a few
minutes ago), had some other questions regarding the exercise log ... such as how
the heck do I know what incline on the treadmill is equivalent to a light,
moderate or steep hill grade. I'm sure they're gonna shake their heads and figure
I'm over complicating things ... but I wanna know, and want to have a better idea
of what I am doing! I tried using the polar monitor while on the treadmill, so
far it hasn't worked at all. At the end of 40 minutes it tells me I've burned a
whopping total of 9 or 15 calories. I'm reasonably sure it has something to do
with the possibility of interference from the treadmill monitors, but no way I can
turn them off. I might try again this week, am thinking about hanging the watch
around my neck (on a string) instead of on my wrist - might get it a bit further
from the treadmill's electronic devices. If it still doesn't work, then I guess
I'm back to punting.

I'm also a stickler on the food entires, had added most of my own to even the ww
website - as I found many of theirs to not be accurate. Like you, I either put
the calories, or weight into the description to make it easy for me to know which
item I actually want to log. We might be overly anal on much of this, but I
figure I've worked too dang hard to get here - I want to make sure I get
everything right to give me a better chance of staying here.

Joyce

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:17:57 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

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

Do you get tired of logging your food into the ww journal? This is really no
different at all. It takes me a few minutes a day, enter the food and the
quantity, done. If you want to keep track of your points also, then you have to
figure them out yourself - again, not overly difficult since the nutrional
information is readily and easily available. Having the exact calorie count is an
added bonus. It also opens your eyes a bit to things, such as if you feel like
eating 4 cups of veggies ... probably are throwing in 100 calories yet counting
them as 0 points. Add several 0 point salads to the day and it doesn't take long
to rack up a few 100 extra calories, yet no points.

Joyce

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 21:17:31 GMT, "Kristine Quilici"
wrote:


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

I have no idea what the earlier version of the program was like, but what kind of
values did you have to enter? The only thing I enter is the quantity ... which I
have/had to do when maintaining the ww journal.

Joyce

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:20:03 GMT, "Kristine Quilici"
wrote:

I do write down everything I eat (most of the time). This week I have been
really good about doing it and so far I have done really well (imagne that)
for me right now counting points and keeping track of one thing is easier
than logging all the values that dietpower has you enter.
Kristine
"Prairie Roots" wrote in message
.. .
I figure that logging everything into the WW Online tool every day is
how I've progressed thus far. For me, vagueness--not knowing what and
how much I ate--got me fat and kept me there. Clarity--knowing exactly
what and how much I'm eating--is getting me healthy and will be
required to keep me there. Whether I continue to use WW Online or
switch to something like DietPower, I figure tracking my food is part
of the way of life I'm adopting. I don't like to log everything in,
but I'm resigned to it being what I need to do to reach and maintain
my goal. Speaking for myself only...

Linda P

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 21:17:31 GMT, "Kristine Quilici"
wrote:


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

One of the bike computers I've seen has a heart monitor, nothing I've
ever felt the need to own, on or off bike. Maybe the inclusion of a
heart monitor replaced the altimeter. No need for altimeters in these
parts. But everyone's got a heart. I think. G

The recommendation for bike computers came from a bike club site for
the reasons you mention. It'll be a while before I join a bike club, I
think. The more I read, the more I see my lack of experience and
knowledge will be a hindrance. My bike might be too. It's only a 4-
speed and very comfortable so might not be able to keep up with all
those road bikes. According to the ride ratings of upcoming group
rides, there aren't rides any scheduled for people whose average speed
is 11 mph. Next season maybe?

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:31:27 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Well, not only is having a bike computer a nice info addition to track
mileage but if you do start going on club rides and longer rides, "cue
sheets" generally have mileage info on how far on a road and then what
mileage to make turns or bear left and stuff like that. So they can
almost essential. But many folks do fine without them also.

I have an older model which I really like since it also shows
elevation gain on its altimeter. It is discontinued - replaced by the
less convenient wris****ch altimeters. I will be inconsolable when it
finally fails. I actually have two, one on the road bike and one on
the mt bike. I had to get new battery covers for them a few weeks
back and called the company and asked if there were any lying around.
He guy chuckled and said if there were, they would be snapped up by
employees immediately - funny, how companies drop popular products.

Breaking in the neck, shoulders and seat take their toll and time.
Each season as I start doing more I feel it more!

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:14:01 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I did not need to see this!

I was thinking today that I "need" to get an odometer (or
"cyclo-computer" as I've seen them called on some bike sites) so I can
keep track of my mileage. So far, I'm still breaking in both the bike
and my body: legs, rear end, lungs, heart, etc. I've gone biking every
day since Saturday, 5 miles at most at a time. But I'm starting to
plan some longer rides and it occurred to me that, over time, logging
my mileage could be interesting. Here I thought I was being silly. And
then, there you go, working yourself into frenzies making milestones!

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:03:54 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I have kept an Lotus 123 spreadsheet of all of my foot-powered
exercise for years. Ever since work was going to (never did) award
folks for their walking, etc with a rebate on health premiums. It has
been going on now for years and near the end of the year has sent me
into a frenzy to sometimes make another milestone.

One year it was 2,000 miles of biking when I realized in mid-dec I was
about 150 miles short of that number. I dragged a bike to work for
some very chilly lunchtime rides. Another it was 100,000 feet of
elevation gain while hiking. I have it on my hp200 palmtop. All
walks/hikes of 2 miles or greater, all-ski and all bike rides getting
separate tallies.

Only about a month ago I finally entered ALL my WW info into an excel
spreadsheet.

Numbers can be helpful.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:17:04 GMT, ray miller
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:20:01 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I figure that logging everything into the WW Online tool every day is
how I've progressed thus far. For me, vagueness--not knowing what and
how much I ate--got me fat and kept me there. Clarity--knowing exactly
what and how much I'm eating--is getting me healthy and will be
required to keep me there. Whether I continue to use WW Online or
switch to something like DietPower, I figure tracking my food is part
of the way of life I'm adopting. I don't like to log everything in,
but I'm resigned to it being what I need to do to reach and maintain
my goal. Speaking for myself only...

I do the same. I log everything I eat (except low cal fluids like diet
coke). I also log all exercise. All done at www.fitday.com. I guess
I'll have to log everything for the foreseable future. It's far too
easy for me to go off track if I don't log.
Of course I log other stuff in excel, like weight over time, and
various measurements, and bodyfat, and calories, and... and...
Is that anal or what?

Ray

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

I am getting an error message from my e mail to them, I probably sent it to
the wrong addy or something. I don't give a hoot if I am anal about this, I
am NOT going back up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

"Joyce" wrote in message
...
Did you get any kind of answer from them? I emailed them this evening
(just a few
minutes ago), had some other questions regarding the exercise log ... such
as how
the heck do I know what incline on the treadmill is equivalent to a light,
moderate or steep hill grade. I'm sure they're gonna shake their heads
and figure
I'm over complicating things ... but I wanna know, and want to have a
better idea
of what I am doing! I tried using the polar monitor while on the
treadmill, so
far it hasn't worked at all. At the end of 40 minutes it tells me I've
burned a
whopping total of 9 or 15 calories. I'm reasonably sure it has something
to do
with the possibility of interference from the treadmill monitors, but no
way I can
turn them off. I might try again this week, am thinking about hanging the
watch
around my neck (on a string) instead of on my wrist - might get it a bit
further
from the treadmill's electronic devices. If it still doesn't work, then I
guess
I'm back to punting.

I'm also a stickler on the food entires, had added most of my own to even
the ww
website - as I found many of theirs to not be accurate. Like you, I
either put
the calories, or weight into the description to make it easy for me to
know which
item I actually want to log. We might be overly anal on much of this, but
I
figure I've worked too dang hard to get here - I want to make sure I get
everything right to give me a better chance of staying here.

Joyce

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:17:57 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

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

Well, you will have to check to see if those Scandinavians have
hearts!! (gd&r)

I think there is now one monitor that has an altimeter but so far my
two are fine (fingers crossed) now that I've replaced the duct tape
with new battery covers. We have lots of hills so it is fun (after the
arduous part) to see how much climbing you did on the bike.

You probably won't need one for a while other than the fun of checking
yourself. I saw where you talked about 11-14 mph. That's not a bad
rate, actually. "Low social" pace I think for some club rides here.
Frankly, I do not do much above that except on some sprints. I really
don't know how the limitation of 4-speeds would affect rides in fairly
level terrain but, yes, it could still limit your choice of rides.
But as you say, don't worry about it just yet. Have fun and as a side
benefit, get exercise.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:09:59 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

One of the bike computers I've seen has a heart monitor, nothing I've
ever felt the need to own, on or off bike. Maybe the inclusion of a
heart monitor replaced the altimeter. No need for altimeters in these
parts. But everyone's got a heart. I think. G

The recommendation for bike computers came from a bike club site for
the reasons you mention. It'll be a while before I join a bike club, I
think. The more I read, the more I see my lack of experience and
knowledge will be a hindrance. My bike might be too. It's only a 4-
speed and very comfortable so might not be able to keep up with all
those road bikes. According to the ride ratings of upcoming group
rides, there aren't rides any scheduled for people whose average speed
is 11 mph. Next season maybe?

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:31:27 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Well, not only is having a bike computer a nice info addition to track
mileage but if you do start going on club rides and longer rides, "cue
sheets" generally have mileage info on how far on a road and then what
mileage to make turns or bear left and stuff like that. So they can
almost essential. But many folks do fine without them also.

I have an older model which I really like since it also shows
elevation gain on its altimeter. It is discontinued - replaced by the
less convenient wris****ch altimeters. I will be inconsolable when it
finally fails. I actually have two, one on the road bike and one on
the mt bike. I had to get new battery covers for them a few weeks
back and called the company and asked if there were any lying around.
He guy chuckled and said if there were, they would be snapped up by
employees immediately - funny, how companies drop popular products.

Breaking in the neck, shoulders and seat take their toll and time.
Each season as I start doing more I feel it more!

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:14:01 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I did not need to see this!

I was thinking today that I "need" to get an odometer (or
"cyclo-computer" as I've seen them called on some bike sites) so I can
keep track of my mileage. So far, I'm still breaking in both the bike
and my body: legs, rear end, lungs, heart, etc. I've gone biking every
day since Saturday, 5 miles at most at a time. But I'm starting to
plan some longer rides and it occurred to me that, over time, logging
my mileage could be interesting. Here I thought I was being silly. And
then, there you go, working yourself into frenzies making milestones!

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:03:54 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I have kept an Lotus 123 spreadsheet of all of my foot-powered
exercise for years. Ever since work was going to (never did) award
folks for their walking, etc with a rebate on health premiums. It has
been going on now for years and near the end of the year has sent me
into a frenzy to sometimes make another milestone.

One year it was 2,000 miles of biking when I realized in mid-dec I was
about 150 miles short of that number. I dragged a bike to work for
some very chilly lunchtime rides. Another it was 100,000 feet of
elevation gain while hiking. I have it on my hp200 palmtop. All
walks/hikes of 2 miles or greater, all-ski and all bike rides getting
separate tallies.

Only about a month ago I finally entered ALL my WW info into an excel
spreadsheet.

Numbers can be helpful.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:17:04 GMT, ray miller
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:20:01 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I figure that logging everything into the WW Online tool every day is
how I've progressed thus far. For me, vagueness--not knowing what and
how much I ate--got me fat and kept me there. Clarity--knowing exactly
what and how much I'm eating--is getting me healthy and will be
required to keep me there. Whether I continue to use WW Online or
switch to something like DietPower, I figure tracking my food is part
of the way of life I'm adopting. I don't like to log everything in,
but I'm resigned to it being what I need to do to reach and maintain
my goal. Speaking for myself only...

I do the same. I log everything I eat (except low cal fluids like diet
coke). I also log all exercise. All done at www.fitday.com. I guess
I'll have to log everything for the foreseable future. It's far too
easy for me to go off track if I don't log.
Of course I log other stuff in excel, like weight over time, and
various measurements, and bodyfat, and calories, and... and...
Is that anal or what?

Ray

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

My email went through, and I did receive the standard automated *you'll hear from
us within 24 hours* reply. I probably sent it to the wrong place though - went
for the support option. Tech support is probably shaking their heads and whooping
it up right about now.

I'm with you, will remain anal and diligent. I was happily surprised to see my
weight creeping down again this week .. all the way right back to 130 this
morning. Journaling, weighing, whatever ... it all seems to work correctly if I
do the work. When I get lazy, I have problems.

Joyce

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:21:40 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

I am getting an error message from my e mail to them, I probably sent it to
the wrong addy or something. I don't give a hoot if I am anal about this, I
am NOT going back up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Did you get any kind of answer from them? I emailed them this evening
(just a few
minutes ago), had some other questions regarding the exercise log ... such
as how
the heck do I know what incline on the treadmill is equivalent to a light,
moderate or steep hill grade. I'm sure they're gonna shake their heads
and figure
I'm over complicating things ... but I wanna know, and want to have a
better idea
of what I am doing! I tried using the polar monitor while on the
treadmill, so
far it hasn't worked at all. At the end of 40 minutes it tells me I've
burned a
whopping total of 9 or 15 calories. I'm reasonably sure it has something
to do
with the possibility of interference from the treadmill monitors, but no
way I can
turn them off. I might try again this week, am thinking about hanging the
watch
around my neck (on a string) instead of on my wrist - might get it a bit
further
from the treadmill's electronic devices. If it still doesn't work, then I
guess
I'm back to punting.

I'm also a stickler on the food entires, had added most of my own to even
the ww
website - as I found many of theirs to not be accurate. Like you, I
either put
the calories, or weight into the description to make it easy for me to
know which
item I actually want to log. We might be overly anal on much of this, but
I
figure I've worked too dang hard to get here - I want to make sure I get
everything right to give me a better chance of staying here.

Joyce

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:17:57 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

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

Scandinavians have hearts. Big ones. They just don't get all mushy
about showing 'em.

If either of the clubs here used terms like "low social pace" I might
consider trying to include myself. But they use terms like Slow,
Moderate, and Fast. I might be slow but I don't want anyone else
defining me that way. G Slow is 9 mph, but you are actually expected
to average 2 mph faster than the listed pace. I don't think I could
maintain 11 mph for 31 miles, one of the shorter bike club routes.

For me, biking is all about having fun. That's how water aerobics is
for me too. Everything else I do--weights, pilates, stability ball,
aerobics--is about the exercise first. I settle for tolerable. Fun
doesn't even enter the mix.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:02:06 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Well, you will have to check to see if those Scandinavians have
hearts!! (gd&r)

I think there is now one monitor that has an altimeter but so far my
two are fine (fingers crossed) now that I've replaced the duct tape
with new battery covers. We have lots of hills so it is fun (after the
arduous part) to see how much climbing you did on the bike.

You probably won't need one for a while other than the fun of checking
yourself. I saw where you talked about 11-14 mph. That's not a bad
rate, actually. "Low social" pace I think for some club rides here.
Frankly, I do not do much above that except on some sprints. I really
don't know how the limitation of 4-speeds would affect rides in fairly
level terrain but, yes, it could still limit your choice of rides.
But as you say, don't worry about it just yet. Have fun and as a side
benefit, get exercise.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:09:59 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

One of the bike computers I've seen has a heart monitor, nothing I've
ever felt the need to own, on or off bike. Maybe the inclusion of a
heart monitor replaced the altimeter. No need for altimeters in these
parts. But everyone's got a heart. I think. G

The recommendation for bike computers came from a bike club site for
the reasons you mention. It'll be a while before I join a bike club, I
think. The more I read, the more I see my lack of experience and
knowledge will be a hindrance. My bike might be too. It's only a 4-
speed and very comfortable so might not be able to keep up with all
those road bikes. According to the ride ratings of upcoming group
rides, there aren't rides any scheduled for people whose average speed
is 11 mph. Next season maybe?

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:31:27 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Well, not only is having a bike computer a nice info addition to track
mileage but if you do start going on club rides and longer rides, "cue
sheets" generally have mileage info on how far on a road and then what
mileage to make turns or bear left and stuff like that. So they can
almost essential. But many folks do fine without them also.

I have an older model which I really like since it also shows
elevation gain on its altimeter. It is discontinued - replaced by the
less convenient wris****ch altimeters. I will be inconsolable when it
finally fails. I actually have two, one on the road bike and one on
the mt bike. I had to get new battery covers for them a few weeks
back and called the company and asked if there were any lying around.
He guy chuckled and said if there were, they would be snapped up by
employees immediately - funny, how companies drop popular products.

Breaking in the neck, shoulders and seat take their toll and time.
Each season as I start doing more I feel it more!

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:14:01 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I did not need to see this!

I was thinking today that I "need" to get an odometer (or
"cyclo-computer" as I've seen them called on some bike sites) so I can
keep track of my mileage. So far, I'm still breaking in both the bike
and my body: legs, rear end, lungs, heart, etc. I've gone biking every
day since Saturday, 5 miles at most at a time. But I'm starting to
plan some longer rides and it occurred to me that, over time, logging
my mileage could be interesting. Here I thought I was being silly. And
then, there you go, working yourself into frenzies making milestones!

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:03:54 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I have kept an Lotus 123 spreadsheet of all of my foot-powered
exercise for years. Ever since work was going to (never did) award
folks for their walking, etc with a rebate on health premiums. It has
been going on now for years and near the end of the year has sent me
into a frenzy to sometimes make another milestone.

One year it was 2,000 miles of biking when I realized in mid-dec I was
about 150 miles short of that number. I dragged a bike to work for
some very chilly lunchtime rides. Another it was 100,000 feet of
elevation gain while hiking. I have it on my hp200 palmtop. All
walks/hikes of 2 miles or greater, all-ski and all bike rides getting
separate tallies.

Only about a month ago I finally entered ALL my WW info into an excel
spreadsheet.

Numbers can be helpful.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:17:04 GMT, ray miller
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:20:01 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I figure that logging everything into the WW Online tool every day is
how I've progressed thus far. For me, vagueness--not knowing what and
how much I ate--got me fat and kept me there. Clarity--knowing exactly
what and how much I'm eating--is getting me healthy and will be
required to keep me there. Whether I continue to use WW Online or
switch to something like DietPower, I figure tracking my food is part
of the way of life I'm adopting. I don't like to log everything in,
but I'm resigned to it being what I need to do to reach and maintain
my goal. Speaking for myself only...

I do the same. I log everything I eat (except low cal fluids like diet
coke). I also log all exercise. All done at www.fitday.com. I guess
I'll have to log everything for the foreseable future. It's far too
easy for me to go off track if I don't log.
Of course I log other stuff in excel, like weight over time, and
various measurements, and bodyfat, and calories, and... and...
Is that anal or what?

Ray

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

Linda P
232/158/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

Ah, stoic, big hearts. (G)

The club here uses different terms for rides but has something that
generally says, the speed, too. Then their are map-provided rides,
regroup rides, leader sticks with pack rides, etc. Varying pace and
style.

You will have to work it a bit more till you do a 30 mile ride but it
probably will come.

And see, I don't do many of those tedious or as you say, tolerable
activities = they bore me.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 17:50:25 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

Scandinavians have hearts. Big ones. They just don't get all mushy
about showing 'em.

If either of the clubs here used terms like "low social pace" I might
consider trying to include myself. But they use terms like Slow,
Moderate, and Fast. I might be slow but I don't want anyone else
defining me that way. G Slow is 9 mph, but you are actually expected
to average 2 mph faster than the listed pace. I don't think I could
maintain 11 mph for 31 miles, one of the shorter bike club routes.

For me, biking is all about having fun. That's how water aerobics is
for me too. Everything else I do--weights, pilates, stability ball,
aerobics--is about the exercise first. I settle for tolerable. Fun
doesn't even enter the mix.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:02:06 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Well, you will have to check to see if those Scandinavians have
hearts!! (gd&r)

I think there is now one monitor that has an altimeter but so far my
two are fine (fingers crossed) now that I've replaced the duct tape
with new battery covers. We have lots of hills so it is fun (after the
arduous part) to see how much climbing you did on the bike.

You probably won't need one for a while other than the fun of checking
yourself. I saw where you talked about 11-14 mph. That's not a bad
rate, actually. "Low social" pace I think for some club rides here.
Frankly, I do not do much above that except on some sprints. I really
don't know how the limitation of 4-speeds would affect rides in fairly
level terrain but, yes, it could still limit your choice of rides.
But as you say, don't worry about it just yet. Have fun and as a side
benefit, get exercise.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:09:59 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

One of the bike computers I've seen has a heart monitor, nothing I've
ever felt the need to own, on or off bike. Maybe the inclusion of a
heart monitor replaced the altimeter. No need for altimeters in these
parts. But everyone's got a heart. I think. G

The recommendation for bike computers came from a bike club site for
the reasons you mention. It'll be a while before I join a bike club, I
think. The more I read, the more I see my lack of experience and
knowledge will be a hindrance. My bike might be too. It's only a 4-
speed and very comfortable so might not be able to keep up with all
those road bikes. According to the ride ratings of upcoming group
rides, there aren't rides any scheduled for people whose average speed
is 11 mph. Next season maybe?

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:31:27 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Well, not only is having a bike computer a nice info addition to track
mileage but if you do start going on club rides and longer rides, "cue
sheets" generally have mileage info on how far on a road and then what
mileage to make turns or bear left and stuff like that. So they can
almost essential. But many folks do fine without them also.

I have an older model which I really like since it also shows
elevation gain on its altimeter. It is discontinued - replaced by the
less convenient wris****ch altimeters. I will be inconsolable when it
finally fails. I actually have two, one on the road bike and one on
the mt bike. I had to get new battery covers for them a few weeks
back and called the company and asked if there were any lying around.
He guy chuckled and said if there were, they would be snapped up by
employees immediately - funny, how companies drop popular products.

Breaking in the neck, shoulders and seat take their toll and time.
Each season as I start doing more I feel it more!

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:14:01 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I did not need to see this!

I was thinking today that I "need" to get an odometer (or
"cyclo-computer" as I've seen them called on some bike sites) so I can
keep track of my mileage. So far, I'm still breaking in both the bike
and my body: legs, rear end, lungs, heart, etc. I've gone biking every
day since Saturday, 5 miles at most at a time. But I'm starting to
plan some longer rides and it occurred to me that, over time, logging
my mileage could be interesting. Here I thought I was being silly. And
then, there you go, working yourself into frenzies making milestones!

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:03:54 -0800, Fred
wrote:

I have kept an Lotus 123 spreadsheet of all of my foot-powered
exercise for years. Ever since work was going to (never did) award
folks for their walking, etc with a rebate on health premiums. It has
been going on now for years and near the end of the year has sent me
into a frenzy to sometimes make another milestone.

One year it was 2,000 miles of biking when I realized in mid-dec I was
about 150 miles short of that number. I dragged a bike to work for
some very chilly lunchtime rides. Another it was 100,000 feet of
elevation gain while hiking. I have it on my hp200 palmtop. All
walks/hikes of 2 miles or greater, all-ski and all bike rides getting
separate tallies.

Only about a month ago I finally entered ALL my WW info into an excel
spreadsheet.

Numbers can be helpful.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:17:04 GMT, ray miller
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:20:01 -0600, Prairie Roots
wrote:

I figure that logging everything into the WW Online tool every day is
how I've progressed thus far. For me, vagueness--not knowing what and
how much I ate--got me fat and kept me there. Clarity--knowing exactly
what and how much I'm eating--is getting me healthy and will be
required to keep me there. Whether I continue to use WW Online or
switch to something like DietPower, I figure tracking my food is part
of the way of life I'm adopting. I don't like to log everything in,
but I'm resigned to it being what I need to do to reach and maintain
my goal. Speaking for myself only...

I do the same. I log everything I eat (except low cal fluids like diet
coke). I also log all exercise. All done at www.fitday.com. I guess
I'll have to log everything for the foreseable future. It's far too
easy for me to go off track if I don't log.
Of course I log other stuff in excel, like weight over time, and
various measurements, and bodyfat, and calories, and... and...
Is that anal or what?

Ray

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

Linda P
232/158/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003

I don't know if this site will help you or not, but here it is anyway:

www.caloriesperhour.com

Connie

Joyce wrote:
Did you get any kind of answer from them? I emailed them this evening (just a few
minutes ago), had some other questions regarding the exercise log ... such as how
the heck do I know what incline on the treadmill is equivalent to a light,
moderate or steep hill grade. I'm sure they're gonna shake their heads and figure
I'm over complicating things ... but I wanna know, and want to have a better idea
of what I am doing! I tried using the polar monitor while on the treadmill, so
far it hasn't worked at all. At the end of 40 minutes it tells me I've burned a
whopping total of 9 or 15 calories. I'm reasonably sure it has something to do
with the possibility of interference from the treadmill monitors, but no way I can
turn them off. I might try again this week, am thinking about hanging the watch
around my neck (on a string) instead of on my wrist - might get it a bit further
from the treadmill's electronic devices. If it still doesn't work, then I guess
I'm back to punting.

I'm also a stickler on the food entires, had added most of my own to even the ww
website - as I found many of theirs to not be accurate. Like you, I either put
the calories, or weight into the description to make it easy for me to know which
item I actually want to log. We might be overly anal on much of this, but I
figure I've worked too dang hard to get here - I want to make sure I get
everything right to give me a better chance of staying here.

Joyce

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:17:57 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:


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







--

Cheers,

Connie Walsh

241.5/197/155
RAFL 210.5/197/198.5
50 lbs off 241.5/197/191.5