Estimated calories vs. meassured calories (Read 170 times)

     

    You need to store the beers further away.

    *farther

     

    Plus you need to be wearing a HRM while you are drinking, to get a more accurate measure.

    Dave

    Joann Y


      *farther

       

      Plus you need to be wearing a HRM while you are drinking, to get a more accurate measure.

       

      *meassure

      Trent


      Good Bad & The Monkey

        I assume that the people who design such devices know what they are doing.

         

        ass/u/me

         

        But I'll go with it.

         

        Yeah, Garmin knows what they are doing. Their primary goal is to make money. They do that well. Their goal is not to serve physiological truth.

         

        Lol. You just proved yourself stupid.

         

        If I ride 50 km in a strong headwind, compared to a 50 km ride in no headwind, are you saying that this requires the same amount of work? Excuse me, but I do know a bit about physics.

         

        I asked a question. I asserted nothing. Rather than answer the question with science, you instead chose an ad hominem attack and an assertion of ideology.

        Trent


        Good Bad & The Monkey

          Lots of things cause heart rate to vary during exercise (and while at rest). Most of them have nothing to do with caloric expenditure.

           

          That was an assertion, which is different than a question.

           

          Further, I know a thing or two about physiology. Science is not important so long as I can make this personal. That is what this thread has taught me.

          joescott


            Yeah, Garmin knows what they are doing. Their primary goal is to make money. They do that well. Their goal is not to serve physiological truth.

             

            Hey now!  They are not necessarily mutually exclusive aims!

            - Joe

            We are fragile creatures on collision with our judgment day.

            Trent


            Good Bad & The Monkey

              High quality bike calorie expenditure calculator

               

              Look. Heart rate is not included. Weight is. Speed is. Duration is.

               

              Wind speed is not.

               

              Every other one I have looked at on the web also omits wind speed.

               

              And again, you never told us what your gold standard is.

              Trent


              Good Bad & The Monkey

                Oh, and for the record, I am stupid. But that is not news. Anybody who has been here a while knows that.

                 

                Because running is stupid. And I run a bit.

                 

                Did you hear that they figured out how Lance Armstrong was cheating? After lots of research, they finally figured it out!

                 

                How did he cheat?

                 

                Yup. He used a bike.

                  Further, I know a thing or two about physiology. 

                   

                  I didn't know they still taught that old-timey stuff in med school.


                  No Talent Drips

                    With all the shoulds going on around here, and Ternt's fancy ad hominem observation, I thought I'd take a moment out of my busy life to remind (or perhaps introduce) Frank and other casual readers to the notion of the Truth-Value Gap. Here is a neat paper on the subject. Please note that I am not publishing this document, rather I am linking to the fine work authored by Paulina Haduong.

                     

                    I am a giver; so allow me to direct you to what I deem the most pertinent portion: 4.3--Bullshit? (p.12) Really, a fine description of the linguistic phenomena.

                     

                    I am quite busy (and a terribly important person) so I have to be breif. I think that Triple caught himself up rather quickly...what compelled me to respond was the manner in which ole Frank approached the "suggestion" and the subsequent conversation. Let us not forget the timeless advice of Dalton

                     

                    Frank, my man, thanks for this whole thing.

                     Dei Gratia

                     


                    Feeling the growl again

                      So if the Garmin designers know what they are doing and their estimate must therefore be the most accurate, does that mean we can complain to RDs when the GPS says that the certified marathon was .2 miles off?

                       

                      I don't think anyone contested a higher heart rate meaning more calories burned.  What was being contested was the assumption that this was a very strong and accurate correlation.  I mean we know Trent is stupid because he runs but we can't accurately estimate his IQ from his mpw.

                       

                      I have a Garmin GPS device that calculates the calories based on my heart rate. I assume that the people who design such devices know what they are doing.

                       

                      And if you don't believe that a higher heart rate for the same type of work (over the same distance) results in more calories burned, then you are more stupid than you are allowed to be.

                       

                      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                       

                      I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

                       

                      Trent


                      Good Bad & The Monkey

                        Here is a scenario that DOES contest the assertion that heart rate correlates with more calories burned:

                         

                        If I run 5 miles at a 10/m/m pace, I will burn x calories. If I then run the 5 miles again at a 7 m/m pace, my HR will be higher, but I will still burn X calories over those 5 miles. No more. The calories correlate with my weight and the distance run, not with the heart rate.

                          Here is a scenario that DOES contest the assertion that heart rate correlates with more calories burned:

                           

                          If I run 5 miles at a 10/m/m pace, I will burn x calories. If I then run the 5 miles again at a 7 m/m pace, my HR will be higher, but I will still burn X calories over those 5 miles. No more. The calories correlate with my weight and the distance run, not with the heart rate.

                           

                          But in this scenario higher heart rate does correlate with more calories burned...at least if we look at calories per unit time instead of calories per unit distance.

                           

                          Yes. I know this is not relevent but I'm bored and it's been a long time since I've had enough free time to be on here.

                            Here is a scenario that DOES contest the assertion that heart rate correlates with more calories burned:

                             

                            If I run 5 miles at a 10/m/m pace, I will burn x calories. If I then run the 5 miles again at a 7 m/m pace, my HR will be higher, but I will still burn X calories over those 5 miles. No more. The calories correlate with my weight and the distance run, not with the heart rate.

                             

                            But did you consider vertical oscillation which Garmin does very well :stirpot


                            Feeling the growl again

                              Here is a scenario that DOES contest the assertion that heart rate correlates with more calories burned:

                               

                              If I run 5 miles at a 10/m/m pace, I will burn x calories. If I then run the 5 miles again at a 7 m/m pace, my HR will be higher, but I will still burn X calories over those 5 miles. No more. The calories correlate with my weight and the distance run, not with the heart rate.

                               

                              I think "per unit time" is an assumption.  But you know what they say about those.

                               

                              MTA apparently I post slower replies than others on the same point.

                              "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                               

                              I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

                               

                              Trent


                              Good Bad & The Monkey

                                I'll see your irrelevant and raise you a stupid.

                                 

                                Dude goes back out and runs a third time. First mile he pops a 5 m/m. Then 2 miles at 12:30 m/m, then back to 2 at 9 m/m. During miles 2 and 3, the HR is still elevated. So for 3 miles, the HR is high, then settles back down. 5 miles total. Still burns x calories. No difference in overall time or distance.