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
  #81  
Old March 27th, 2004, 08:28 AM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

I believe the s'mores are 3 points ... gonna go run and check it out for you. Ok,
actually came out to 2.68 US Points ... 150calories/1g fat/2g fiber. These are
currently my favorite.

Joyce

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:42:17 -0800, Fred wrote:

They are the Skinny Cow Sandwich. They are 2-3 points, I believe. It
is not listed on their site - new flavor.



On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:10:49 GMT, "Laura"
wrote:

How many points? I have 1 fudge bar left so I might just try these Smores if
they are any good. Bulk or indiv wrapped?

"Fred" wrote in message
. ..
Great, oh, I mean wonderful, er, terrific, ahem - get well soon.

But my WW's-leader-secretary introduced me to the Skinny Cow Smores
today. I really liked the graham cracker cookie and the filling was
not bad either (G)



On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:15:57 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

Ha, not to worry, the antibiotic is making me want to graze all day.

"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
You know killing yourself is not a permissable way to beat me in this
weight game. Take care of yourself.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:07:29 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

yeah, I know. This morning I am resorting to a dose of antibiotics,
first
time in years that I have gotten sick enough to do that.

"Prairie Roots" wrote in message
.. .
Can't fool me, Lesanne. Your getting sick has nothing to do with

your
weight loss. I'm in agreement with some others that your caregiving
responsibilities are taking their toll. Not that you can change the
fact...

I worry about you.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:52:48 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

You know, I am the original healthy girl too, or I was. Back when

I
was
school nurse to 800 middle school viral bombs I went 4 years with
perfect
attendance. And here I am falling apart. I am the only person I

know
who
got sicker when they lost weight....

"Prairie Roots" wrote in message
.. .
You were recovering from a cold not too long ago and here you are
again. Take care of yourself girl.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:35:55 GMT, "Lesanne"


wrote:

I am eating what it suggests in calories, and up a bit this

week,
but
I
have
a really rotten cold and have actually not exercised for 4 out

of
the
last 5
days. So not me. But I am really sick here. And Hungry. Go
figure.
I
am
still okay (within two pounds of goal) though.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Today was really interesting. I ate an incredible amount of
calories -
based on
me totally guessing on quantities and using generic food

choices
available
in the
data base as opposed to actual more accurate counts as I am

used
to.
Yet
it was
the lowest NQ rating I have ever had at the end of the day

(think
I
ended
at a B).
Obviously, the foods I ate were not of much nutritional value.
G
It
does open
your eyes quite a bit.

Interesting point #2: Last week I figured I could use the
average
for
my
official
weigh in, since I did have readings for every day. My average
for
the
week was
exactly to the ounce what the scale said on Friday. Ok,

figured
it
was
just a
total fluke. Today was official weigh-in day again. I hit

the
scale
bright and
early, disappointed a teeny bit as the weight has gone up the
past
few
days ...
but average for the week again was exactly to the ounce what

the
scale
told me
this morning ... 130.9. Go figure! Probably a fluke again,

but
it
is
pretty neat
to see it turn out this way two weeks in a row. G

This last week I have gone back and entered my points into the
note
section, is
pretty interesting also. The points are pretty close to what

I
*thought*
I should
be at - all that good fiber and 0 point veggies/salads tend to
balance
things out
calorie wise.

Joyce

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:18:34 GMT, "Lesanne"

wrote:

I have used it for years, but go months sometimes without
logging,
then I
erase myself and start over in there. I am being reinspired

by
it
now
too.
I just upgraded it this year to the newest version and am

loving
it.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Ahhh, don't know why but I had the impression you had been
logging
with
diet power
all the way through. I agree, it really is fun - but also

has
opened
my
eyes a
little more. I find I am eating better, not sure why.

Maybe
because I
am
logging
everything, so am thinking more about my choices? You

know,
do I
REALLY
want that
one teeny finger cookie that accounts for a quarter of a

point
which
I
usually
don't log ... but have logged it in dietpower. g I also
had
felt
that
for the
past 3 weeks I had really been struggling. Nothing major,

but
my
weight
has been
swinging greatly. For some reason (probably the choices

I'm
making,
could
also be
TOM finally gave way) looking at the calories has helped a

lot
the
past
2
weeks,
and the weight has been steadily declining ... back to 130
today
...
finally. Now
what I find really interesting, and maybe things are

starting
to
balance
out and
will continue to do so, is that my budgeted calories

totalled
26726
since
I've
started dietpower ... and I've eaten 26185 ... which is

pretty
dang
close.
Granted, I've logged 3317 exercise calories, but heaven

only
knows
if
those are
logged correctly. LOL! Regardless, something appears to be
correct
if
the
weight
has come back down. I still have a tough time believing

that
my
metabolic
rate is
2200 and I'm not willing to eat that high yet. I'm giving

it
more
time
to
continue adjusting.

And that NQ is really neat! What is funny is if you log

your
daily
vitamin in ...
you go right up to *A* status. G It is motivating

though,
learning
what
the
body needs, what you are getting too much of, etc. It

really
does
have
me
rethinking many of my food choices.

Joyce


On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Lesanne"

wrote:

I had stopped logging at diet power and was just writing a

WW
journal.
I
started again with diet power this last week for fun, and

it
is
improving
the general quality of my diet in a big way. For some

reason
seeing
that
NQ
is very motivating to me.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
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















Linda P
232/157.2/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003


Linda P
232/157.2/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003





  #82  
Old March 27th, 2004, 09:40 AM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

I somehow managed to hit a button while playing around and it totally reset
everything. My metabollic rate dropped immediately from 2100 to 1400 ... even put
me at 500 for the early days (which I know isn't even possible). LOL! And eating
at or near that 1400 calories this week, found my weight to be up 2 pounds today -
go figure. It's all a complete mystery to me. g

Hope you are feeling better soon. Colds are nasty and seem to hang on forever.

Joyce

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:35:55 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

I am eating what it suggests in calories, and up a bit this week, but I have
a really rotten cold and have actually not exercised for 4 out of the last 5
days. So not me. But I am really sick here. And Hungry. Go figure. I am
still okay (within two pounds of goal) though.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Today was really interesting. I ate an incredible amount of calories -

based on
me totally guessing on quantities and using generic food choices available

in the
data base as opposed to actual more accurate counts as I am used to. Yet

it was
the lowest NQ rating I have ever had at the end of the day (think I ended

at a B).
Obviously, the foods I ate were not of much nutritional value. G It

does open
your eyes quite a bit.

Interesting point #2: Last week I figured I could use the average for my

official
weigh in, since I did have readings for every day. My average for the

week was
exactly to the ounce what the scale said on Friday. Ok, figured it was

just a
total fluke. Today was official weigh-in day again. I hit the scale

bright and
early, disappointed a teeny bit as the weight has gone up the past few

days ...
but average for the week again was exactly to the ounce what the scale

told me
this morning ... 130.9. Go figure! Probably a fluke again, but it is

pretty neat
to see it turn out this way two weeks in a row. G

This last week I have gone back and entered my points into the note

section, is
pretty interesting also. The points are pretty close to what I *thought*

I should
be at - all that good fiber and 0 point veggies/salads tend to balance

things out
calorie wise.

Joyce

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:18:34 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

I have used it for years, but go months sometimes without logging, then I
erase myself and start over in there. I am being reinspired by it now

too.
I just upgraded it this year to the newest version and am loving it.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Ahhh, don't know why but I had the impression you had been logging with
diet power
all the way through. I agree, it really is fun - but also has opened

my
eyes a
little more. I find I am eating better, not sure why. Maybe because I

am
logging
everything, so am thinking more about my choices? You know, do I

REALLY
want that
one teeny finger cookie that accounts for a quarter of a point which I
usually
don't log ... but have logged it in dietpower. g I also had felt

that
for the
past 3 weeks I had really been struggling. Nothing major, but my

weight
has been
swinging greatly. For some reason (probably the choices I'm making,

could
also be
TOM finally gave way) looking at the calories has helped a lot the past

2
weeks,
and the weight has been steadily declining ... back to 130 today ...
finally. Now
what I find really interesting, and maybe things are starting to

balance
out and
will continue to do so, is that my budgeted calories totalled 26726

since
I've
started dietpower ... and I've eaten 26185 ... which is pretty dang

close.
Granted, I've logged 3317 exercise calories, but heaven only knows if
those are
logged correctly. LOL! Regardless, something appears to be correct if

the
weight
has come back down. I still have a tough time believing that my

metabolic
rate is
2200 and I'm not willing to eat that high yet. I'm giving it more time

to
continue adjusting.

And that NQ is really neat! What is funny is if you log your daily
vitamin in ...
you go right up to *A* status. G It is motivating though, learning

what
the
body needs, what you are getting too much of, etc. It really does have

me
rethinking many of my food choices.

Joyce


On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Lesanne"

wrote:

I had stopped logging at diet power and was just writing a WW journal.

I
started again with diet power this last week for fun, and it is

improving
the general quality of my diet in a big way. For some reason seeing

that
NQ
is very motivating to me.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
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















  #83  
Old March 27th, 2004, 02:36 PM
Lesanne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

I was hanging about at 160is early in the week, then began to inexplicably
drop despite eating a lot, then had a couple of days when I ate at the low
end just from feeling YUCK, and I am all back down this morning. Go figure.
My total calories this past week averaged around 2000 a day.

"Joyce" wrote in message
...
I somehow managed to hit a button while playing around and it totally

reset
everything. My metabollic rate dropped immediately from 2100 to 1400 ...

even put
me at 500 for the early days (which I know isn't even possible). LOL!

And eating
at or near that 1400 calories this week, found my weight to be up 2 pounds

today -
go figure. It's all a complete mystery to me. g

Hope you are feeling better soon. Colds are nasty and seem to hang on

forever.

Joyce

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:35:55 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

I am eating what it suggests in calories, and up a bit this week, but I

have
a really rotten cold and have actually not exercised for 4 out of the

last 5
days. So not me. But I am really sick here. And Hungry. Go figure. I

am
still okay (within two pounds of goal) though.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Today was really interesting. I ate an incredible amount of calories -

based on
me totally guessing on quantities and using generic food choices

available
in the
data base as opposed to actual more accurate counts as I am used to.

Yet
it was
the lowest NQ rating I have ever had at the end of the day (think I

ended
at a B).
Obviously, the foods I ate were not of much nutritional value. G It

does open
your eyes quite a bit.

Interesting point #2: Last week I figured I could use the average for

my
official
weigh in, since I did have readings for every day. My average for the

week was
exactly to the ounce what the scale said on Friday. Ok, figured it was

just a
total fluke. Today was official weigh-in day again. I hit the scale

bright and
early, disappointed a teeny bit as the weight has gone up the past few

days ...
but average for the week again was exactly to the ounce what the scale

told me
this morning ... 130.9. Go figure! Probably a fluke again, but it is

pretty neat
to see it turn out this way two weeks in a row. G

This last week I have gone back and entered my points into the note

section, is
pretty interesting also. The points are pretty close to what I

*thought*
I should
be at - all that good fiber and 0 point veggies/salads tend to balance

things out
calorie wise.

Joyce

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:18:34 GMT, "Lesanne"

wrote:

I have used it for years, but go months sometimes without logging,

then I
erase myself and start over in there. I am being reinspired by it now

too.
I just upgraded it this year to the newest version and am loving it.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Ahhh, don't know why but I had the impression you had been logging

with
diet power
all the way through. I agree, it really is fun - but also has

opened
my
eyes a
little more. I find I am eating better, not sure why. Maybe

because I
am
logging
everything, so am thinking more about my choices? You know, do I

REALLY
want that
one teeny finger cookie that accounts for a quarter of a point which

I
usually
don't log ... but have logged it in dietpower. g I also had felt

that
for the
past 3 weeks I had really been struggling. Nothing major, but my

weight
has been
swinging greatly. For some reason (probably the choices I'm making,

could
also be
TOM finally gave way) looking at the calories has helped a lot the

past
2
weeks,
and the weight has been steadily declining ... back to 130 today ...
finally. Now
what I find really interesting, and maybe things are starting to

balance
out and
will continue to do so, is that my budgeted calories totalled 26726

since
I've
started dietpower ... and I've eaten 26185 ... which is pretty dang

close.
Granted, I've logged 3317 exercise calories, but heaven only knows

if
those are
logged correctly. LOL! Regardless, something appears to be correct

if
the
weight
has come back down. I still have a tough time believing that my

metabolic
rate is
2200 and I'm not willing to eat that high yet. I'm giving it more

time
to
continue adjusting.

And that NQ is really neat! What is funny is if you log your daily
vitamin in ...
you go right up to *A* status. G It is motivating though,

learning
what
the
body needs, what you are getting too much of, etc. It really does

have
me
rethinking many of my food choices.

Joyce


On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Lesanne"

wrote:

I had stopped logging at diet power and was just writing a WW

journal.
I
started again with diet power this last week for fun, and it is

improving
the general quality of my diet in a big way. For some reason

seeing
that
NQ
is very motivating to me.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
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

















  #84  
Old March 29th, 2004, 03:45 AM
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

Thanks for checking. I still have not found them at a convenient
location where they would not melt on a longer drive home with them.

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 01:28:54 -0600, Joyce wrote:

I believe the s'mores are 3 points ... gonna go run and check it out for you. Ok,
actually came out to 2.68 US Points ... 150calories/1g fat/2g fiber. These are
currently my favorite.

Joyce

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:42:17 -0800, Fred wrote:

They are the Skinny Cow Sandwich. They are 2-3 points, I believe. It
is not listed on their site - new flavor.



On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:10:49 GMT, "Laura"
wrote:

How many points? I have 1 fudge bar left so I might just try these Smores if
they are any good. Bulk or indiv wrapped?

"Fred" wrote in message
...
Great, oh, I mean wonderful, er, terrific, ahem - get well soon.

But my WW's-leader-secretary introduced me to the Skinny Cow Smores
today. I really liked the graham cracker cookie and the filling was
not bad either (G)



On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:15:57 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

Ha, not to worry, the antibiotic is making me want to graze all day.

"Fred" wrote in message
.. .
You know killing yourself is not a permissable way to beat me in this
weight game. Take care of yourself.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:07:29 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

yeah, I know. This morning I am resorting to a dose of antibiotics,
first
time in years that I have gotten sick enough to do that.

"Prairie Roots" wrote in message
.. .
Can't fool me, Lesanne. Your getting sick has nothing to do with
your
weight loss. I'm in agreement with some others that your caregiving
responsibilities are taking their toll. Not that you can change the
fact...

I worry about you.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:52:48 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

You know, I am the original healthy girl too, or I was. Back when
I
was
school nurse to 800 middle school viral bombs I went 4 years with
perfect
attendance. And here I am falling apart. I am the only person I
know
who
got sicker when they lost weight....

"Prairie Roots" wrote in message
.. .
You were recovering from a cold not too long ago and here you are
again. Take care of yourself girl.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:35:55 GMT, "Lesanne"

wrote:

I am eating what it suggests in calories, and up a bit this
week,
but
I
have
a really rotten cold and have actually not exercised for 4 out
of
the
last 5
days. So not me. But I am really sick here. And Hungry. Go
figure.
I
am
still okay (within two pounds of goal) though.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Today was really interesting. I ate an incredible amount of
calories -
based on
me totally guessing on quantities and using generic food
choices
available
in the
data base as opposed to actual more accurate counts as I am
used
to.
Yet
it was
the lowest NQ rating I have ever had at the end of the day
(think
I
ended
at a B).
Obviously, the foods I ate were not of much nutritional value.
G
It
does open
your eyes quite a bit.

Interesting point #2: Last week I figured I could use the
average
for
my
official
weigh in, since I did have readings for every day. My average
for
the
week was
exactly to the ounce what the scale said on Friday. Ok,
figured
it
was
just a
total fluke. Today was official weigh-in day again. I hit
the
scale
bright and
early, disappointed a teeny bit as the weight has gone up the
past
few
days ...
but average for the week again was exactly to the ounce what
the
scale
told me
this morning ... 130.9. Go figure! Probably a fluke again,
but
it
is
pretty neat
to see it turn out this way two weeks in a row. G

This last week I have gone back and entered my points into the
note
section, is
pretty interesting also. The points are pretty close to what
I
*thought*
I should
be at - all that good fiber and 0 point veggies/salads tend to
balance
things out
calorie wise.

Joyce

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:18:34 GMT, "Lesanne"

wrote:

I have used it for years, but go months sometimes without
logging,
then I
erase myself and start over in there. I am being reinspired
by
it
now
too.
I just upgraded it this year to the newest version and am
loving
it.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Ahhh, don't know why but I had the impression you had been
logging
with
diet power
all the way through. I agree, it really is fun - but also
has
opened
my
eyes a
little more. I find I am eating better, not sure why.
Maybe
because I
am
logging
everything, so am thinking more about my choices? You
know,
do I
REALLY
want that
one teeny finger cookie that accounts for a quarter of a
point
which
I
usually
don't log ... but have logged it in dietpower. g I also
had
felt
that
for the
past 3 weeks I had really been struggling. Nothing major,
but
my
weight
has been
swinging greatly. For some reason (probably the choices
I'm
making,
could
also be
TOM finally gave way) looking at the calories has helped a
lot
the
past
2
weeks,
and the weight has been steadily declining ... back to 130
today
...
finally. Now
what I find really interesting, and maybe things are
starting
to
balance
out and
will continue to do so, is that my budgeted calories
totalled
26726
since
I've
started dietpower ... and I've eaten 26185 ... which is
pretty
dang
close.
Granted, I've logged 3317 exercise calories, but heaven
only
knows
if
those are
logged correctly. LOL! Regardless, something appears to be
correct
if
the
weight
has come back down. I still have a tough time believing
that
my
metabolic
rate is
2200 and I'm not willing to eat that high yet. I'm giving
it
more
time
to
continue adjusting.

And that NQ is really neat! What is funny is if you log
your
daily
vitamin in ...
you go right up to *A* status. G It is motivating
though,
learning
what
the
body needs, what you are getting too much of, etc. It
really
does
have
me
rethinking many of my food choices.

Joyce


On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Lesanne"

wrote:

I had stopped logging at diet power and was just writing a
WW
journal.
I
started again with diet power this last week for fun, and
it
is
improving
the general quality of my diet in a big way. For some
reason
seeing
that
NQ
is very motivating to me.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
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















Linda P
232/157.2/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003


Linda P
232/157.2/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003





  #85  
Old March 31st, 2004, 09:59 AM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

Hmmmmm, can we blame it on the weather again? G I have hanging in the
132/133/134 zone all week ... back and forth no matter what I ate. Things started
dropping slowly over the weekend, with a big jump this morning as well as a lot of
water (excess?) leaving. Interestingly to me, the humidity today was also much
lower ... scale threw me to 130 again. So I must really be hanging somewhere in
there. I don't know what I have been eating calorie wise as an average - probably
should take a peek at that. g I feel like I've been eating rather well though.
I've really been into playing with that NQ number - love seeing those A's. LOL

Joyce

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:36:09 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

I was hanging about at 160is early in the week, then began to inexplicably
drop despite eating a lot, then had a couple of days when I ate at the low
end just from feeling YUCK, and I am all back down this morning. Go figure.
My total calories this past week averaged around 2000 a day.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
I somehow managed to hit a button while playing around and it totally

reset
everything. My metabollic rate dropped immediately from 2100 to 1400 ...

even put
me at 500 for the early days (which I know isn't even possible). LOL!

And eating
at or near that 1400 calories this week, found my weight to be up 2 pounds

today -
go figure. It's all a complete mystery to me. g

Hope you are feeling better soon. Colds are nasty and seem to hang on

forever.

Joyce

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:35:55 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

I am eating what it suggests in calories, and up a bit this week, but I

have
a really rotten cold and have actually not exercised for 4 out of the

last 5
days. So not me. But I am really sick here. And Hungry. Go figure. I

am
still okay (within two pounds of goal) though.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Today was really interesting. I ate an incredible amount of calories -
based on
me totally guessing on quantities and using generic food choices

available
in the
data base as opposed to actual more accurate counts as I am used to.

Yet
it was
the lowest NQ rating I have ever had at the end of the day (think I

ended
at a B).
Obviously, the foods I ate were not of much nutritional value. G It
does open
your eyes quite a bit.

Interesting point #2: Last week I figured I could use the average for

my
official
weigh in, since I did have readings for every day. My average for the
week was
exactly to the ounce what the scale said on Friday. Ok, figured it was
just a
total fluke. Today was official weigh-in day again. I hit the scale
bright and
early, disappointed a teeny bit as the weight has gone up the past few
days ...
but average for the week again was exactly to the ounce what the scale
told me
this morning ... 130.9. Go figure! Probably a fluke again, but it is
pretty neat
to see it turn out this way two weeks in a row. G

This last week I have gone back and entered my points into the note
section, is
pretty interesting also. The points are pretty close to what I

*thought*
I should
be at - all that good fiber and 0 point veggies/salads tend to balance
things out
calorie wise.

Joyce

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:18:34 GMT, "Lesanne"

wrote:

I have used it for years, but go months sometimes without logging,

then I
erase myself and start over in there. I am being reinspired by it now
too.
I just upgraded it this year to the newest version and am loving it.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Ahhh, don't know why but I had the impression you had been logging

with
diet power
all the way through. I agree, it really is fun - but also has

opened
my
eyes a
little more. I find I am eating better, not sure why. Maybe

because I
am
logging
everything, so am thinking more about my choices? You know, do I
REALLY
want that
one teeny finger cookie that accounts for a quarter of a point which

I
usually
don't log ... but have logged it in dietpower. g I also had felt
that
for the
past 3 weeks I had really been struggling. Nothing major, but my
weight
has been
swinging greatly. For some reason (probably the choices I'm making,
could
also be
TOM finally gave way) looking at the calories has helped a lot the

past
2
weeks,
and the weight has been steadily declining ... back to 130 today ...
finally. Now
what I find really interesting, and maybe things are starting to
balance
out and
will continue to do so, is that my budgeted calories totalled 26726
since
I've
started dietpower ... and I've eaten 26185 ... which is pretty dang
close.
Granted, I've logged 3317 exercise calories, but heaven only knows

if
those are
logged correctly. LOL! Regardless, something appears to be correct

if
the
weight
has come back down. I still have a tough time believing that my
metabolic
rate is
2200 and I'm not willing to eat that high yet. I'm giving it more

time
to
continue adjusting.

And that NQ is really neat! What is funny is if you log your daily
vitamin in ...
you go right up to *A* status. G It is motivating though,

learning
what
the
body needs, what you are getting too much of, etc. It really does

have
me
rethinking many of my food choices.

Joyce


On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

I had stopped logging at diet power and was just writing a WW

journal.
I
started again with diet power this last week for fun, and it is
improving
the general quality of my diet in a big way. For some reason

seeing
that
NQ
is very motivating to me.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
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

















  #86  
Old March 31st, 2004, 03:53 PM
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

Maybe you biked in the snow, too. I think it may have worked well! (G)

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 02:59:46 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Hmmmmm, can we blame it on the weather again? G I have hanging in the
132/133/134 zone all week ... back and forth no matter what I ate. Things started
dropping slowly over the weekend, with a big jump this morning as well as a lot of
water (excess?) leaving. Interestingly to me, the humidity today was also much
lower ... scale threw me to 130 again. So I must really be hanging somewhere in
there. I don't know what I have been eating calorie wise as an average - probably
should take a peek at that. g I feel like I've been eating rather well though.
I've really been into playing with that NQ number - love seeing those A's. LOL

Joyce

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:36:09 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

I was hanging about at 160is early in the week, then began to inexplicably
drop despite eating a lot, then had a couple of days when I ate at the low
end just from feeling YUCK, and I am all back down this morning. Go figure.
My total calories this past week averaged around 2000 a day.

"Joyce" wrote in message
. ..
I somehow managed to hit a button while playing around and it totally

reset
everything. My metabollic rate dropped immediately from 2100 to 1400 ...

even put
me at 500 for the early days (which I know isn't even possible). LOL!

And eating
at or near that 1400 calories this week, found my weight to be up 2 pounds

today -
go figure. It's all a complete mystery to me. g

Hope you are feeling better soon. Colds are nasty and seem to hang on

forever.

Joyce

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:35:55 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

I am eating what it suggests in calories, and up a bit this week, but I

have
a really rotten cold and have actually not exercised for 4 out of the

last 5
days. So not me. But I am really sick here. And Hungry. Go figure. I

am
still okay (within two pounds of goal) though.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Today was really interesting. I ate an incredible amount of calories -
based on
me totally guessing on quantities and using generic food choices

available
in the
data base as opposed to actual more accurate counts as I am used to.

Yet
it was
the lowest NQ rating I have ever had at the end of the day (think I

ended
at a B).
Obviously, the foods I ate were not of much nutritional value. G It
does open
your eyes quite a bit.

Interesting point #2: Last week I figured I could use the average for

my
official
weigh in, since I did have readings for every day. My average for the
week was
exactly to the ounce what the scale said on Friday. Ok, figured it was
just a
total fluke. Today was official weigh-in day again. I hit the scale
bright and
early, disappointed a teeny bit as the weight has gone up the past few
days ...
but average for the week again was exactly to the ounce what the scale
told me
this morning ... 130.9. Go figure! Probably a fluke again, but it is
pretty neat
to see it turn out this way two weeks in a row. G

This last week I have gone back and entered my points into the note
section, is
pretty interesting also. The points are pretty close to what I

*thought*
I should
be at - all that good fiber and 0 point veggies/salads tend to balance
things out
calorie wise.

Joyce

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:18:34 GMT, "Lesanne"

wrote:

I have used it for years, but go months sometimes without logging,

then I
erase myself and start over in there. I am being reinspired by it now
too.
I just upgraded it this year to the newest version and am loving it.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Ahhh, don't know why but I had the impression you had been logging

with
diet power
all the way through. I agree, it really is fun - but also has

opened
my
eyes a
little more. I find I am eating better, not sure why. Maybe

because I
am
logging
everything, so am thinking more about my choices? You know, do I
REALLY
want that
one teeny finger cookie that accounts for a quarter of a point which

I
usually
don't log ... but have logged it in dietpower. g I also had felt
that
for the
past 3 weeks I had really been struggling. Nothing major, but my
weight
has been
swinging greatly. For some reason (probably the choices I'm making,
could
also be
TOM finally gave way) looking at the calories has helped a lot the

past
2
weeks,
and the weight has been steadily declining ... back to 130 today ...
finally. Now
what I find really interesting, and maybe things are starting to
balance
out and
will continue to do so, is that my budgeted calories totalled 26726
since
I've
started dietpower ... and I've eaten 26185 ... which is pretty dang
close.
Granted, I've logged 3317 exercise calories, but heaven only knows

if
those are
logged correctly. LOL! Regardless, something appears to be correct

if
the
weight
has come back down. I still have a tough time believing that my
metabolic
rate is
2200 and I'm not willing to eat that high yet. I'm giving it more

time
to
continue adjusting.

And that NQ is really neat! What is funny is if you log your daily
vitamin in ...
you go right up to *A* status. G It is motivating though,

learning
what
the
body needs, what you are getting too much of, etc. It really does

have
me
rethinking many of my food choices.

Joyce


On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

I had stopped logging at diet power and was just writing a WW

journal.
I
started again with diet power this last week for fun, and it is
improving
the general quality of my diet in a big way. For some reason

seeing
that
NQ
is very motivating to me.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
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

















  #87  
Old March 31st, 2004, 10:12 PM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

LOL! Heck, I haven't even biked in my basement let alone in the snow. But my
darling grandson just popped over to show me that he has just today learned how to
pedal his tricycle - he is in seventh heaven and all smiles. So at least someone
around here is out pedaling in the cold. G And today the scale held steady, all
is well.

Joyce

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 06:53:02 -0800, Fred wrote:

Maybe you biked in the snow, too. I think it may have worked well! (G)

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 02:59:46 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Hmmmmm, can we blame it on the weather again? G I have hanging in the
132/133/134 zone all week ... back and forth no matter what I ate. Things started
dropping slowly over the weekend, with a big jump this morning as well as a lot of
water (excess?) leaving. Interestingly to me, the humidity today was also much
lower ... scale threw me to 130 again. So I must really be hanging somewhere in
there. I don't know what I have been eating calorie wise as an average - probably
should take a peek at that. g I feel like I've been eating rather well though.
I've really been into playing with that NQ number - love seeing those A's. LOL

Joyce

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:36:09 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

I was hanging about at 160is early in the week, then began to inexplicably
drop despite eating a lot, then had a couple of days when I ate at the low
end just from feeling YUCK, and I am all back down this morning. Go figure.
My total calories this past week averaged around 2000 a day.

"Joyce" wrote in message
...
I somehow managed to hit a button while playing around and it totally
reset
everything. My metabollic rate dropped immediately from 2100 to 1400 ...
even put
me at 500 for the early days (which I know isn't even possible). LOL!
And eating
at or near that 1400 calories this week, found my weight to be up 2 pounds
today -
go figure. It's all a complete mystery to me. g

Hope you are feeling better soon. Colds are nasty and seem to hang on
forever.

Joyce

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:35:55 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

I am eating what it suggests in calories, and up a bit this week, but I
have
a really rotten cold and have actually not exercised for 4 out of the
last 5
days. So not me. But I am really sick here. And Hungry. Go figure. I
am
still okay (within two pounds of goal) though.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Today was really interesting. I ate an incredible amount of calories -
based on
me totally guessing on quantities and using generic food choices
available
in the
data base as opposed to actual more accurate counts as I am used to.
Yet
it was
the lowest NQ rating I have ever had at the end of the day (think I
ended
at a B).
Obviously, the foods I ate were not of much nutritional value. G It
does open
your eyes quite a bit.

Interesting point #2: Last week I figured I could use the average for
my
official
weigh in, since I did have readings for every day. My average for the
week was
exactly to the ounce what the scale said on Friday. Ok, figured it was
just a
total fluke. Today was official weigh-in day again. I hit the scale
bright and
early, disappointed a teeny bit as the weight has gone up the past few
days ...
but average for the week again was exactly to the ounce what the scale
told me
this morning ... 130.9. Go figure! Probably a fluke again, but it is
pretty neat
to see it turn out this way two weeks in a row. G

This last week I have gone back and entered my points into the note
section, is
pretty interesting also. The points are pretty close to what I
*thought*
I should
be at - all that good fiber and 0 point veggies/salads tend to balance
things out
calorie wise.

Joyce

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:18:34 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

I have used it for years, but go months sometimes without logging,
then I
erase myself and start over in there. I am being reinspired by it now
too.
I just upgraded it this year to the newest version and am loving it.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Ahhh, don't know why but I had the impression you had been logging
with
diet power
all the way through. I agree, it really is fun - but also has
opened
my
eyes a
little more. I find I am eating better, not sure why. Maybe
because I
am
logging
everything, so am thinking more about my choices? You know, do I
REALLY
want that
one teeny finger cookie that accounts for a quarter of a point which
I
usually
don't log ... but have logged it in dietpower. g I also had felt
that
for the
past 3 weeks I had really been struggling. Nothing major, but my
weight
has been
swinging greatly. For some reason (probably the choices I'm making,
could
also be
TOM finally gave way) looking at the calories has helped a lot the
past
2
weeks,
and the weight has been steadily declining ... back to 130 today ...
finally. Now
what I find really interesting, and maybe things are starting to
balance
out and
will continue to do so, is that my budgeted calories totalled 26726
since
I've
started dietpower ... and I've eaten 26185 ... which is pretty dang
close.
Granted, I've logged 3317 exercise calories, but heaven only knows
if
those are
logged correctly. LOL! Regardless, something appears to be correct
if
the
weight
has come back down. I still have a tough time believing that my
metabolic
rate is
2200 and I'm not willing to eat that high yet. I'm giving it more
time
to
continue adjusting.

And that NQ is really neat! What is funny is if you log your daily
vitamin in ...
you go right up to *A* status. G It is motivating though,
learning
what
the
body needs, what you are getting too much of, etc. It really does
have
me
rethinking many of my food choices.

Joyce


On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

I had stopped logging at diet power and was just writing a WW
journal.
I
started again with diet power this last week for fun, and it is
improving
the general quality of my diet in a big way. For some reason
seeing
that
NQ
is very motivating to me.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
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

















  #88  
Old April 1st, 2004, 12:10 AM
frood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

Like I'm going to take advice from someone crazy enough to bike in snow!

--
Wendy
http://griffinsflight.com/Quilting/quilt1.htm
de-fang email address to reply


"Fred" wrote in message
...
Well, like Frood, you will have to start doing it to keep up with the
kids (G)

Good for the scale, oh, I mean you! (G)

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:12:13 -0600, Joyce wrote:

LOL! Heck, I haven't even biked in my basement let alone in the snow.

But my
darling grandson just popped over to show me that he has just today

learned how to
pedal his tricycle - he is in seventh heaven and all smiles. So at least

someone
around here is out pedaling in the cold. G And today the scale held

steady, all
is well.

Joyce

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 06:53:02 -0800, Fred

wrote:

Maybe you biked in the snow, too. I think it may have worked well! (G)

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 02:59:46 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Hmmmmm, can we blame it on the weather again? G I have hanging in

the
132/133/134 zone all week ... back and forth no matter what I ate.

Things started
dropping slowly over the weekend, with a big jump this morning as well

as a lot of
water (excess?) leaving. Interestingly to me, the humidity today was

also much
lower ... scale threw me to 130 again. So I must really be hanging

somewhere in
there. I don't know what I have been eating calorie wise as an

average - probably
should take a peek at that. g I feel like I've been eating rather

well though.
I've really been into playing with that NQ number - love seeing those

A's. LOL

Joyce

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:36:09 GMT, "Lesanne"

wrote:

I was hanging about at 160is early in the week, then began to

inexplicably
drop despite eating a lot, then had a couple of days when I ate at the

low
end just from feeling YUCK, and I am all back down this morning. Go

figure.
My total calories this past week averaged around 2000 a day.

"Joyce" wrote in message
m...
I somehow managed to hit a button while playing around and it

totally
reset
everything. My metabollic rate dropped immediately from 2100 to

1400 ...
even put
me at 500 for the early days (which I know isn't even possible).

LOL!
And eating
at or near that 1400 calories this week, found my weight to be up 2

pounds
today -
go figure. It's all a complete mystery to me. g

Hope you are feeling better soon. Colds are nasty and seem to hang

on
forever.

Joyce

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:35:55 GMT, "Lesanne"

wrote:

I am eating what it suggests in calories, and up a bit this week,

but I
have
a really rotten cold and have actually not exercised for 4 out of

the
last 5
days. So not me. But I am really sick here. And Hungry. Go

figure. I
am
still okay (within two pounds of goal) though.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Today was really interesting. I ate an incredible amount of

calories -
based on
me totally guessing on quantities and using generic food choices
available
in the
data base as opposed to actual more accurate counts as I am used

to.
Yet
it was
the lowest NQ rating I have ever had at the end of the day (think

I
ended
at a B).
Obviously, the foods I ate were not of much nutritional value.

G It
does open
your eyes quite a bit.

Interesting point #2: Last week I figured I could use the

average for
my
official
weigh in, since I did have readings for every day. My average

for the
week was
exactly to the ounce what the scale said on Friday. Ok, figured

it was
just a
total fluke. Today was official weigh-in day again. I hit the

scale
bright and
early, disappointed a teeny bit as the weight has gone up the

past few
days ...
but average for the week again was exactly to the ounce what the

scale
told me
this morning ... 130.9. Go figure! Probably a fluke again, but

it is
pretty neat
to see it turn out this way two weeks in a row. G

This last week I have gone back and entered my points into the

note
section, is
pretty interesting also. The points are pretty close to what I
*thought*
I should
be at - all that good fiber and 0 point veggies/salads tend to

balance
things out
calorie wise.

Joyce

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:18:34 GMT, "Lesanne"


wrote:

I have used it for years, but go months sometimes without

logging,
then I
erase myself and start over in there. I am being reinspired by

it now
too.
I just upgraded it this year to the newest version and am loving

it.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Ahhh, don't know why but I had the impression you had been

logging
with
diet power
all the way through. I agree, it really is fun - but also has
opened
my
eyes a
little more. I find I am eating better, not sure why. Maybe
because I
am
logging
everything, so am thinking more about my choices? You know,

do I
REALLY
want that
one teeny finger cookie that accounts for a quarter of a point

which
I
usually
don't log ... but have logged it in dietpower. g I also

had felt
that
for the
past 3 weeks I had really been struggling. Nothing major, but

my
weight
has been
swinging greatly. For some reason (probably the choices I'm

making,
could
also be
TOM finally gave way) looking at the calories has helped a lot

the
past
2
weeks,
and the weight has been steadily declining ... back to 130

today ...
finally. Now
what I find really interesting, and maybe things are starting

to
balance
out and
will continue to do so, is that my budgeted calories totalled

26726
since
I've
started dietpower ... and I've eaten 26185 ... which is pretty

dang
close.
Granted, I've logged 3317 exercise calories, but heaven only

knows
if
those are
logged correctly. LOL! Regardless, something appears to be

correct
if
the
weight
has come back down. I still have a tough time believing that

my
metabolic
rate is
2200 and I'm not willing to eat that high yet. I'm giving it

more
time
to
continue adjusting.

And that NQ is really neat! What is funny is if you log your

daily
vitamin in ...
you go right up to *A* status. G It is motivating though,
learning
what
the
body needs, what you are getting too much of, etc. It really

does
have
me
rethinking many of my food choices.

Joyce


On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Lesanne"


wrote:

I had stopped logging at diet power and was just writing a WW
journal.
I
started again with diet power this last week for fun, and it

is
improving
the general quality of my diet in a big way. For some reason
seeing
that
NQ
is very motivating to me.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
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



















  #89  
Old April 1st, 2004, 02:16 AM
Prairie Roots
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

That's cutting a rather fine edge on the distinction. Besides the
outcome is the same. G

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:57:48 -0800, Fred
wrote:

Besides I did not really start crazy enough to bike in snow it kind of
happened.


Linda P
232/155.6/WW goal 145
joined WW Online 22-Feb-2003
  #90  
Old April 10th, 2004, 07:36 AM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

And he does love being chased, is his favorite game this week. He has been chased
around the yard, around the garage, around the house - leaving him in fits of
giggles ... and sleeping very well these days. g

Joyce

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 07:20:00 -0800, Fred wrote:

Neither state will last long. Get ready to chase (g)

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 01:11:26 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Nahhhhh, his legs are too short, will be awhile before he can pedal faster than I
can walk. He's still at the stage where you have to remind him to turn the bike
around and go the other way. G

Joyce

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:39:32 -0800, Fred wrote:

Well, like Frood, you will have to start doing it to keep up with the
kids (G)

Good for the scale, oh, I mean you! (G)

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:12:13 -0600, Joyce wrote:

LOL! Heck, I haven't even biked in my basement let alone in the snow. But my
darling grandson just popped over to show me that he has just today learned how to
pedal his tricycle - he is in seventh heaven and all smiles. So at least someone
around here is out pedaling in the cold. G And today the scale held steady, all
is well.

Joyce

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 06:53:02 -0800, Fred wrote:

Maybe you biked in the snow, too. I think it may have worked well! (G)

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 02:59:46 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Hmmmmm, can we blame it on the weather again? G I have hanging in the
132/133/134 zone all week ... back and forth no matter what I ate. Things started
dropping slowly over the weekend, with a big jump this morning as well as a lot of
water (excess?) leaving. Interestingly to me, the humidity today was also much
lower ... scale threw me to 130 again. So I must really be hanging somewhere in
there. I don't know what I have been eating calorie wise as an average - probably
should take a peek at that. g I feel like I've been eating rather well though.
I've really been into playing with that NQ number - love seeing those A's. LOL

Joyce

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:36:09 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

I was hanging about at 160is early in the week, then began to inexplicably
drop despite eating a lot, then had a couple of days when I ate at the low
end just from feeling YUCK, and I am all back down this morning. Go figure.
My total calories this past week averaged around 2000 a day.

"Joyce" wrote in message
news:r9fa6055to4s4b7vcc0s7tci5ococ3esoa@4ax .com...
I somehow managed to hit a button while playing around and it totally
reset
everything. My metabollic rate dropped immediately from 2100 to 1400 ...
even put
me at 500 for the early days (which I know isn't even possible). LOL!
And eating
at or near that 1400 calories this week, found my weight to be up 2 pounds
today -
go figure. It's all a complete mystery to me. g

Hope you are feeling better soon. Colds are nasty and seem to hang on
forever.

Joyce

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:35:55 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

I am eating what it suggests in calories, and up a bit this week, but I
have
a really rotten cold and have actually not exercised for 4 out of the
last 5
days. So not me. But I am really sick here. And Hungry. Go figure. I
am
still okay (within two pounds of goal) though.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Today was really interesting. I ate an incredible amount of calories -
based on
me totally guessing on quantities and using generic food choices
available
in the
data base as opposed to actual more accurate counts as I am used to.
Yet
it was
the lowest NQ rating I have ever had at the end of the day (think I
ended
at a B).
Obviously, the foods I ate were not of much nutritional value. G It
does open
your eyes quite a bit.

Interesting point #2: Last week I figured I could use the average for
my
official
weigh in, since I did have readings for every day. My average for the
week was
exactly to the ounce what the scale said on Friday. Ok, figured it was
just a
total fluke. Today was official weigh-in day again. I hit the scale
bright and
early, disappointed a teeny bit as the weight has gone up the past few
days ...
but average for the week again was exactly to the ounce what the scale
told me
this morning ... 130.9. Go figure! Probably a fluke again, but it is
pretty neat
to see it turn out this way two weeks in a row. G

This last week I have gone back and entered my points into the note
section, is
pretty interesting also. The points are pretty close to what I
*thought*
I should
be at - all that good fiber and 0 point veggies/salads tend to balance
things out
calorie wise.

Joyce

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:18:34 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

I have used it for years, but go months sometimes without logging,
then I
erase myself and start over in there. I am being reinspired by it now
too.
I just upgraded it this year to the newest version and am loving it.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
Ahhh, don't know why but I had the impression you had been logging
with
diet power
all the way through. I agree, it really is fun - but also has
opened
my
eyes a
little more. I find I am eating better, not sure why. Maybe
because I
am
logging
everything, so am thinking more about my choices? You know, do I
REALLY
want that
one teeny finger cookie that accounts for a quarter of a point which
I
usually
don't log ... but have logged it in dietpower. g I also had felt
that
for the
past 3 weeks I had really been struggling. Nothing major, but my
weight
has been
swinging greatly. For some reason (probably the choices I'm making,
could
also be
TOM finally gave way) looking at the calories has helped a lot the
past
2
weeks,
and the weight has been steadily declining ... back to 130 today ...
finally. Now
what I find really interesting, and maybe things are starting to
balance
out and
will continue to do so, is that my budgeted calories totalled 26726
since
I've
started dietpower ... and I've eaten 26185 ... which is pretty dang
close.
Granted, I've logged 3317 exercise calories, but heaven only knows
if
those are
logged correctly. LOL! Regardless, something appears to be correct
if
the
weight
has come back down. I still have a tough time believing that my
metabolic
rate is
2200 and I'm not willing to eat that high yet. I'm giving it more
time
to
continue adjusting.

And that NQ is really neat! What is funny is if you log your daily
vitamin in ...
you go right up to *A* status. G It is motivating though,
learning
what
the
body needs, what you are getting too much of, etc. It really does
have
me
rethinking many of my food choices.

Joyce


On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:37:19 GMT, "Lesanne"
wrote:

I had stopped logging at diet power and was just writing a WW
journal.
I
started again with diet power this last week for fun, and it is
improving
the general quality of my diet in a big way. For some reason
seeing
that
NQ
is very motivating to me.

"Joyce" wrote in message
.. .
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

















 




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 01:57 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.