A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Weightwatchers
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A really idiotic caloric burn rate question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 14th, 2004, 10:18 AM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 14th, 2004, 02:17 PM
Lesanne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 14th, 2004, 02:25 PM
Lesanne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 14th, 2004, 03:45 PM
Miss Violette
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 14th, 2004, 04:10 PM
Prairie Roots
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 14th, 2004, 05:02 PM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 14th, 2004, 06:17 PM
Lesanne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 14th, 2004, 10:17 PM
Kristine Quilici
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 14th, 2004, 10:29 PM
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 14th, 2004, 11:14 PM
Prairie Roots
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Heart Rate Question 1-7-04 Janice Kennish Weightwatchers 18 January 15th, 2004 07:17 AM
Question for those who know about heart rate Janice Kennish Weightwatchers 3 January 11th, 2004 06:55 AM
Question about heart rate 1-7-04 Janice Kennish Weightwatchers 0 January 7th, 2004 09:48 PM
Newbie here. Heart Rate Question. Shaunus General Discussion 3 January 4th, 2004 06:29 PM
Heart rate during exercise question Helen Larkin Low Carbohydrate Diets 5 November 4th, 2003 01:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.