The Unfat Challenge.

[AbsolutStoli]

hey, do any of you use a heart rate monitor? i was thinking about getting one just to see what my rates were while im exercising and how many calories i burn as compared to what the machine says. any recommendations? i dont need any bells and whistles, and something preferably under $90...but it would be nice to have some features too.

[steve]

yes, I use one and I do find it useful. Getting one under $100 might be a problem.. you'd be getting the most basic model.

Polar seems to be the leading manufacturer of Heart Rate Monitors. I had one, it worked well. Now I have a Garmin, which has a HRM feature. It works well too. Here's a good list of 'em where you can compare features:
http://www.campmor.com/webapp/wcs/st...Id=40000000226

They also come up on SAC from time to time.

[cantunamunch]

205, swimming 8000/wk in the am before breakfast, everything else the same.

[altachic]

I have used a Polar HRM for a while. Pretty much anytime I workout, I use it, as that is really the only way to know what zone you are in when you get up there...I don't need to workout in a high zone, working out in a lower is better for fat burning as we all know.

On another note. I will use a Suunto HRM from now on, I just don't like my Polar that much and it has failed me more than twice.

[Odin]

FYI on the Heart Rate/Caloric Monitor thing...

There is a new product on the market called a Body Bug. Highly rated by Popular Science (I believe) It measures your caloric expenditures during the day. IE It will tell you how many calories you have burned that day amongst many other data. All the trainers at 24 fitness I work at have them now, and apparantly you wear them all day (look a bit like an i-pod) round your bicep or so. Then at the end of the day you download the results to your computer. Gone are the days of guessing... how much did I burn today? Did I get enough exercise? How many calories can I eat in realtionship to my normal day to day activities. It actually takes care of that guesswork completely.

http://www.bodybugg.com/

-- side side note --

recently did my measurements and I am UP alot closer to my goal weight now with only a small amount of bfp gain. I recently was able to push up 500 lbs on the reclining leg press! (10 45 lb weights and 2 25 pounders.) This trainer stuff kicks ace!

[altachic]

I've seen a lot of those on folks at the 24hour that I go to...seems very interesting and super sweet!

[Tunco]

Weigh in today.

I don't know if I fucked it up, but the percentage calculator didn't work for me. But I am a dumb ass who entered his weight in the gray column first.

From 202 to 184.6, an 8.7% drop. I was lower 2 day ago, but when I was at the pizza place the other day, when I said "A slice and a salad", they thought I said, "Baked ravioli with meatballs and garlic knots". So that set me back a little.

[mrryde]

fuck me, i gained 3 lbs this week. too much stress not enough exercise and i didn't eat all that well. any way 252.1 this morning.

my sister had the baby last night 2.5 lb 14" long, last i heard he was breathing on his own. looks like i am headed to NY sometime today

[snow_slider]

191.8 as of this morning, but I am coming down with a head cold and I always slack off when I get sick - both with my eating and with my exercise.

[steve]

302.2..

tief, I was going to fix your data, but it looks like someone took care of it..

[Tunco]

302.2..

tief, I was going to fix your data, but it looks like someone took care of it..

Thanks, I did the math myself. Good thing I have a crap load of ski gloves so I had enough fingers to count with.

Thanks again for setting up the spreadsheet.

[yentna]

Regarding the HR monitors, I also use a Suunto and will stick with them. My Polar failed me twice (screen leaked & got all wierded out on both, one after two days!), but the Suunto is pretty slick. Got the T1, basic model, on Backcountry.com. Runs around $100.

Only thing is that the screen scratches easily - I just cut circles out of a PDA screen protector and use that. Works like a charm.

Also, forgot to weigh in this morning - ran with the dog though, in a 20 minute blizzard. Funny - the entire blizzard fell within my 30 minute run. Sigh. That was pleasant!

Speaking of low intensity v. high for fat burning, there's a bit of a myth / misunderstanding there. At lower intensities, it's true that a higher percentage of the calories you burn will be fat. But, at higher intensities, you burn WAY more total calories, so even though the percentage of fat calories may be lower, the total fat calories will usually be higher. Just a thought.

http://www.prevention.com/article/0,...4219-1,00.html

[snow_slider]

I agree yenta. High intensity always burns more total calories. I'm trying to lose weight. I'll take total calorie loss versus targeted calorie loss. Once I hit my weight goal, I'll become more concerned with where the calorie loss is coming from.

[fez]

Glad these guys arent in our contest! 60 pounds in 12 weeks?

Bozeman's ‘Biggest Loser': Plum drops nearly 60 pounds

By CAMDEN EASTERLING, Chronicle Staff Writer

More than 70 workouts and nearly 60 lost pounds later, Tracey Plum is Bozeman's proverbial biggest loser.

Plum, 38, was pronounced the winner of the The Ridge Athletic Club's and Billion Auto Group's Biggest Loser competition, modeled after NBC's TV reality show of the same name.

“The program was very, very successful,” Plum said of the 12-week course that helped him drop 58.2 pounds. “I'm in better shape now than I was in high school when I played football.”

The Ridge and Billion challenged 20 local people to work out -- as a group and independently -- and eat right during the contest. The top prize was a new Jeep vehicle for a year.

Contestants celebrated Wednesday after the final weigh-in.

Plum, who helps his mother run an online eBay business, started with 270 pounds on his 5-foot-11-inch frame. He had high blood pressure and diabetes that required daily insulin, he said.

Now he weighs 212 pounds, his blood pressure is lower and he no longer needs insulin, said Plum, who lives in Bozeman.

Ridge Fitness Director Josh Palmer recalled the day Plum found he had more energy than the Stairmaster.

“I remember him doing 99 minutes, when the machine stopped -- otherwise, he would have kept on going,” Palmer said.

Plum inspired his teammates, contestant Todd Benson of Bozeman said.

“He earned it,” said Benson, a limousine driver. “I will allow myself to be beat by him.”

Plum lost a higher percentage of his starting weight. But Benson, 43, who lost more than 60 pounds from a starting weight of 338 pounds, was among the top five losers.

Rochelle Harrison, another of the top five, said she felt “like a new woman” after losing more than 23 pounds from her starting weight of 165 pounds.

The program made such an impact on the 35-year-old mother of four that she plans to switch careers -- from child care provider to fitness instructor.

Having more energy was also a perk for Krista Gray of Bozeman, who lost more than 30 pounds from her starting weight of 199 pounds.

“I can keep up with my kids now,” said the stay-at-home mother of three.

Dain Kovash, 36, of Livingston, is changing plans for the house he's building now that he's lost 47 pounds. What was intended as an entertainment room has become a weight room, he said.

The participants all credited trainers Lana Lahey and Dewey Peacock with motivating them and creating challenging, but manageable workouts.

“There's just no way to thank them,” Plum said of Ridge staff. “Other than to keep going, I guess.”

Plum, like many of his teammates, said he planned to drop more pounds.

Many contestants actually lost more weight than Ridge staff expected when the contest started. Palmer said they figured participants would lose about 20 pounds, which is standard for a 12-week weight-loss program.

But the average was 35 pounds, he said.

Peacock chalked that up to good work ethics, ability to stick with the program, healthy habits and, to everyone's surprise, the high level of community support.

The compliments, encouragement, high-fives and even phone calls from strangers, along with encouragement from spouses, friends and families made all the difference, Palmer said.

[fez]

I agree yenta. High intensity always burns more total calories. I'm trying to lose weight. I'll take total calorie loss versus targeted calorie loss. Once I hit my weight goal, I'll become more concerned with where the calorie loss is coming from.

this is a pretty interesting article that basically says interval training is the best way to lose fat. 65% to 95% back to 65%.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Exercis...2817212&page=1

It has changed how i do the cardio portions of my work out. i hit the rowing machines a lot and used to do one day of sprints (10 x 1000m) with my heart rate getting up to 175 - 180. resting in between each one until my heart rate dropped.

the rest of the week i did 10000m at a moderate pace, keeping my heart rate around 140 - 145. since reading the article i do 10000m but after every 1000m i do a 500m sprint. again spiking my hr up to 175 - 180 then taking it easy during the 1000m to let my hr recover.

[steve]

Speaking of low intensity v. high for fat burning, there's a bit of a myth / misunderstanding there. At lower intensities, it's true that a higher percentage of the calories you burn will be fat. But, at higher intensities, you burn WAY more total calories, so even though the percentage of fat calories may be lower, the total fat calories will usually be higher. Just a thought.

Here's why - you may not burn more calories during the actual workout, but your metabolism will be revved up for the rest of the day - resulting in a net increase in calories burned. And since it's a slight increase in energy burn over a relatively long period, vs. a dramatic increase in calorie burn over a relatively short period (ie 1-hour low-intensity jog), the body can use a slow-but-efficient way of burning those extra calories - fat.

maybe a contrived example will help me prove my point:

1-hour low-intensity jog - you burn 1000 calories per hour. Total calories burned during workout: 1000, taken primarily from muscle and blood glucose stores, with some fat burning.

20-minute interval workout - you burn 1500 calories per hour, 500 total during workout, taken primarily from muscle and blood glucose stores (some of it anaerobically), maybe a little from the ATP-CP process, and not as much from fat burning.


The next twelve hours: if you did the 1-hour low intensity jog, you may burn 25 more calories per hour from a slightly excited metabolism, virtually all from fat burning. from the interval workout, however, you might be burning 100 more calories per hour, all from fat burning. Over 12 hours, that's a difference of 900 calories, all from fat, which equates to an additional ¼-lb of weight loss, all from fat, that day.

(by the way, these number are totally made up.. but the idea is the same.)

[yentna]

Well, we'd better be making true lifestyle changes rather than dieting, eh? Learn to love exercise. Sigh. Anyway...

http://www.physorg.com/news94906931.html

Dieting does not work, researchers report Discussion at PhysOrgForum

Will you lose weight and keep it off if you diet? No, probably not, UCLA researchers report in the April issue of American Psychologist, the journal of the American Psychological Association.
"You can initially lose 5 to 10 percent of your weight on any number of diets, but then the weight comes back," said Traci Mann, UCLA associate professor of psychology and lead author of the study. "We found that the majority of people regained all the weight, plus more. Sustained weight loss was found only in a small minority of participants, while complete weight regain was found in the majority. Diets do not lead to sustained weight loss or health benefits for the majority of people."

Mann and her co-authors conducted the most comprehensive and rigorous analysis of diet studies, analyzing 31 long-term studies.

"What happens to people on diets in the long run?" Mann asked. "Would they have been better off to not go on a diet at all? We decided to dig up and analyze every study that followed people on diets for two to five years. We concluded most of them would have been better off not going on the diet at all. Their weight would be pretty much the same, and their bodies would not suffer the wear and tear from losing weight and gaining it all back."

People on diets typically lose 5 to 10 percent of their starting weight in the first six months, the researchers found. However, at least one-third to two-thirds of people on diets regain more weight than they lost within four or five years, and the true number may well be significantly higher, they said.

"Although the findings reported give a bleak picture of the effectiveness of diets, there are reasons why the actual effectiveness of diets is even worse," Mann said.

Mann said that certain factors biased the diet studies to make them appear more effective than they really were. For one, many participants self-reported their weight by phone or mail rather than having their weight measured on a scale by an impartial source. Also, the studies have very low follow-up rates — eight of the studies had follow-up rates lower than 50 percent, and those who responded may not have been representative of the entire group, since people who gain back large amounts of weight are generally unlikely to show up for follow-up tests, Mann said.

"Several studies indicate that dieting is actually a consistent predictor of future weight gain," said Janet Tomiyama, a UCLA graduate student of psychology and co-author of the study. One study found that both men and women who participated in formal weight-loss programs gained significantly more weight over a two-year period than those who had not participated in a weight-loss program, she said.

Another study, which examined a variety of lifestyle factors and their relationship to changes in weight in more than 19,000 healthy older men over a four-year period, found that "one of the best predictors of weight gain over the four years was having lost weight on a diet at some point during the years before the study started," Tomiyama said. In several studies, people in control groups who did not diet were not that much worse off — and in many cases were better off — than those who did diet, she said.

If dieting doesn't work, what does?

"Eating in moderation is a good idea for everybody, and so is regular exercise," Mann said. "That is not what we looked at in this study. Exercise may well be the key factor leading to sustained weight loss. Studies consistently find that people who reported the most exercise also had the most weight loss."

Diet studies of less than two years are too short to show whether dieters have regained the weight they lost, Mann said.

"Even when you follow dieters four years, they're still regaining weight," she said.

One study of dieting obese patients followed them for varying lengths of time. Among those who were followed for fewer than two years, 23 percent gained back more weight than they had lost, while of those who were followed for at least two years, 83 percent gained back more weight than they had lost, Mann said. One study found that 50 percent of dieters weighed more than 11 pounds over their starting weight five years after the diet, she said.

Evidence suggests that repeatedly losing and gaining weight is linked to cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and altered immune function. Mann and Tomiyama recommend that more research be conducted on the health effects of losing and gaining weight, noting that scientists do not fully understand how such weight cycling leads to adverse health effects.

Mann notes that her mother has tried different diets, and has not succeeded in keeping the weight off. "My mother has been on diets and says what we are saying is obvious," she said.

While the researchers analyzed 31 dieting studies, they have not evaluated specific diets.

Medicare raised the issue of whether obesity is an illness, deleting the words "Obesity is not considered an illness" from its coverage regulations in 2004. The move may open the door for Medicare to consider funding treatments for obesity, Mann noted.

"Diets are not effective in treating obesity," said Mann. "We are recommending that Medicare should not fund weight-loss programs as a treatment for obesity. The benefits of
dieting are too small and the potential harm is too large for dieting to be recommended as a safe, effective treatment for obesity."

From 1980 to 2000, the percentage of Americans who were obese more than doubled, from 15 percent to 31 percent of the population, Mann noted.

A social psychologist, Mann, taught a UCLA graduate seminar on the psychology of eating four years ago. She and her students continued the research when the course ended. Mann's co-authors are Erika Westling, Ann-Marie Lew, Barbra Samuels and Jason Chatman.

"We asked what evidence is there that dieting works in the long term, and found that the evidence shows the opposite" Tomiyama said.

Source: University of California - Los Angeles

[yentna]

Here's why - you may not burn more calories during the actual workout, but your metabolism will be revved up for the rest of the day - resulting in a net increase in calories burned.

But your metabolism is revved up from BOTH workouts, the moderate one AND the high intensity, so the same long term effect afterwards. The moderate one won't rev up your metabolism more than a high intensity workout - unless I'm confused. Anyway, my point was just that you really burn more fat in a high intensity workout even though the percentage of the total is lower.

[gh444]

i dont have permission to change the spreadsheet so can someone put 252.5 in my April 12th box. thanks

-aaron

[steve]

But your metabolism is revved up from BOTH workouts, the moderate one AND the high intensity, so the same long term effect afterwards. The moderate one won't rev up your metabolism more than a high intensity workout - unless I'm confused. Anyway, my point was just that you really burn more fat in a high intensity workout even though the percentage of the total is lower.

actually, high-intensity workouts do rev up your metabolism more than low-intensity. so not the same long-term effect, one is much more significant.

"The intensity you've experienced will have you burning a lot of calories for even hours after the workout - something you don't get from long, low intensity aerobics."
(http://hussmanfitness.org/html/TGHowtoWorkout.html)

[snow_slider]

I'll just settle for long high intensity workouts.

[yentna]

actually, high-intensity workouts do rev up your metabolism more than low-intensity. so not the same long-term effect, one is much more significant.

"The intensity you've experienced will have you burning a lot of calories for even hours after the workout - something you don't get from long, low intensity aerobics."
(http://hussmanfitness.org/html/TGHowtoWorkout.html)

Heh, I misread and thought you were saying the low intensity workouts gave more of a long term benefit. That's what I get for sneaking quick looks at work!

Sorry, . We're on the same page after all.

[mountaingirl1961]

hey, do any of you use a heart rate monitor? i was thinking about getting one just to see what my rates were while im exercising and how many calories i burn as compared to what the machine says. any recommendations? i dont need any bells and whistles, and something preferably under $90...but it would be nice to have some features too.

Interesting thing about the HRM - I found out how hard I wasn't working.

I've owned and used a good Stairmaster for several years. Last year I got a HRM and started using it... heartrate while on the infernal machine averaged around 110 BPM at the level I was using it. Waste of time, even though I was spending 45 mins to an hour on the thing. Anyway, I cranked up the intensity and now it doesn't feel like I'm working any harder than I used to, am just getting more out of the time spent.

Also interesting - when skinning up or on my MTB my HR goes through the roof, and yet it's quite sustainable over the course of a few hours. Guess it's just that much more interesting. Skiing a couple of weeks ago my HR averaged over what's ostinsibly supposed to be my max working HR. Had no idea I was working that hard, just seemed like another day in the BC to me.

Didn't feel too guilty about the mexi-food after we got back to town, though.

[AbsolutStoli]

this is a pretty interesting article that basically says interval training is the best way to lose fat. 65% to 95% back to 65%.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Exercis...2817212&page=1

It has changed how i do the cardio portions of my work out. i hit the rowing machines a lot and used to do one day of sprints (10 x 1000m) with my heart rate getting up to 175 - 180. resting in between each one until my heart rate dropped.

the rest of the week i did 10000m at a moderate pace, keeping my heart rate around 140 - 145. since reading the article i do 10000m but after every 1000m i do a 500m sprint. again spiking my hr up to 175 - 180 then taking it easy during the 1000m to let my hr recover.

cool, i row also. no HR monitor yet, so i dont really know which target areas im hitting, but this is my routine basically 5 days out of the week (i take weekends off).

10 min warm up at roughly 32-33 SPM, i try to stay between 2:10-2:20/500m pace. the last minute i do a sprint and typically get down to around 1:50-1:58/500m. (the first 10 minutes ive been consistently at 2200m so far)
quick rest
30 minutes of what id guess is moderate rowing. i try to stay under 2:20/500m. every 10th minute i also up the intensity and try to stay under 2:10/500m
quick rest & stretch w/o geting up from the machine
20 minutes at the same intensity, although it gets a little tougher maintaining the pace at under 2:20/500. but thats the goal. i hit 10k usually in 46-47minutes. total distance for the hour in the low 13k's (13,079m best so far).

then i rotate days between doing inclined situps or leg presses.

btw, i row at the gym on a concept2 and they have this website where you can keep a log of the distances/times and it ranks you whithin the community. pretty cool and motivational. http://www.concept2.com


thanks everyone about the HR monitor info. it would definitely not hurt to know what my heart is doing during my workout though. does the chest band feel constrictive while exercising? rowing is already pretty rough as far as getting breathing right, you know? what do you guys use as far as the features on the monitors? i mean, whats a good balance of functions to look for? whats the point in getting a monitor with functions i wont use, right?

Also interesting - when skinning up or on my MTB my HR goes through the roof, and yet it's quite sustainable over the course of a few hours. Guess it's just that much more interesting. Skiing a couple of weeks ago my HR averaged over what's ostinsibly supposed to be my max working HR. Had no idea I was working that hard, just seemed like another day in the BC to me.

Didn't feel too guilty about the mexi-food after we got back to town, though.

that IS interesting. maybe its not just the intensity of the workout while MTB/skinning/skiing but the rush of the activity? like your adrenaline is kicking in and just the excitement of being out there as opposed to exercising as part of a routine? which poses the question, does it matter why your heart rate goes up as long as it goes up? i mean, if you keep scaring yourself into your target HR can you lose fat just watching scary movies all day? lol hmmmm

[WWCD]

does the chest band feel constrictive while exercising?

I've never noticed it. The 2 that I've had use a very elastic material for the straps that stays put and moves when needed. You should be just fine.