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
  #1  
Old March 13th, 2004, 11:11 PM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

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

  #2  
Old March 14th, 2004, 01:39 AM
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

Well, I'm not sure - do I understand that in both cases, the speed is
4mph?

I do recall reading years ago that walking supposedly burned more
calories than jogging. Walking was considered "less" efficient.

Or in other words, I have no idea!

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is,
please give it to me in terms I can understand. g

I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a
*quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is
automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add
(miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a
difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated
speed?

I am sooooooooooo confused! g

Joyce


  #3  
Old March 14th, 2004, 02:07 AM
Prairie Roots
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

Sorry Joyce, but I can't be of ANY help to you, since I don't even
understand the QUESTION. This reads like the kind word problem in math
that would make my eyes glaze over--if a train heading East from
Chicago travels at a speed of 200 mph and a train heading South from
Minneapolis travels at a speed of 100 mph, which one will arrive in
Seattle last?

Sure hope someone can give you the answer.
Linda P

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is,
please give it to me in terms I can understand. g

I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a
*quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is
automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add
(miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a
difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated
speed?

I am sooooooooooo confused! g

Joyce


  #4  
Old March 14th, 2004, 02:13 AM
Kristine Quilici
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question


Joyce wrote 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?

Hi Joyce,
I think it is because the treadmill is a constant speed. Since with a brisk
walk you speed may vary over the distance covered, you might not know your
speed on a walk is increasing or decreasing. What program are you using?
Kristine


  #5  
Old March 14th, 2004, 02:30 AM
Lesanne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

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



  #6  
Old March 14th, 2004, 02:37 AM
Lesanne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

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





  #7  
Old March 14th, 2004, 09:52 AM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

hehehe - at least I know I wasn't seeing things wrong!

Joyce

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:30:52 GMT, "Lesanne" wrote:

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



  #8  
Old March 14th, 2004, 09:58 AM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

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





  #9  
Old March 14th, 2004, 10:12 AM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 01:13:10 GMT, "Kristine Quilici"
wrote:


Joyce wrote 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?

Hi Joyce,
I think it is because the treadmill is a constant speed. Since with a brisk
walk you speed may vary over the distance covered, you might not know your
speed on a walk is increasing or decreasing. What program are you using?


That's all I could think of too, but Lesanne discovered that the program
developers have found this to be a mistake and are working on fixing it. sigh
Now I wonder if since I walk on a steady incline if that is higher. LOL

I'm using the dietpower program, www.dietpower.com absolutely love it!

Joyce


Kristine


  #10  
Old March 14th, 2004, 10:15 AM
Joyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A really idiotic caloric burn rate question

LOL - the train from Rhode Island would arrive in Seattle last. G yup, one of
those questions that probably doesn't have a logical explanation ... other than
Lesanne did discover that it was a program error. Oh well, so I over exagerated
my exercise. G I FEEL like I worked that hard, my legs tell me that I have -
darn incline walking is not easy.

Joyce

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:07:32 -0600, Prairie Roots wrote:

Sorry Joyce, but I can't be of ANY help to you, since I don't even
understand the QUESTION. This reads like the kind word problem in math
that would make my eyes glaze over--if a train heading East from
Chicago travels at a speed of 200 mph and a train heading South from
Minneapolis travels at a speed of 100 mph, which one will arrive in
Seattle last?

Sure hope someone can give you the answer.
Linda P

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:11:15 -0600, Joyce wrote:

Ok, one for you gurus ... if there even is an explanation. And if there is,
please give it to me in terms I can understand. g

I'm using the diet program Lesanne has spoken about and noticed what I think is a
*quirk* ... maybe it is, maybe it isn't, I don't have a clue. But since this is
automatically calculated based on my weight and height along with the info I add
(miles/time), I'm making an assumption that there must be some kind of a
difference in these activities. So here goes ... I work out on the treadmill,
which is a speed factored activity (so this program tells me). This program says
that someone my weight and height will burn 0.0874 calories/minute if walking at
roughly 4MPH. BUT ... if going for a non speed factored brisk walk at 4MPH (15
miles per minute) it says I will burn at a rate of 0.03174/minute. Can anyone
explain to me why the difference rate of caloric expenditure between the two
activities? Or is it solely because on a treadmill it is a constant, automated
speed?

I am sooooooooooo confused! g

Joyce


 




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 11:43 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.