Things seem to be going well the last couple of weeks. I've dropped
about a lb a week each week. I'm still at 83.6 kg, which is higher
than my all-time low of 79.8 kg, and I would really, really like to
lose another 10 kg, but things are under control. And the most
important thing is that I've managed to stay on the diet so far for
690 days without going off program even once. And I'm down a net of
42.4 kg = 93 lb since starting.
Anyway, what I wanted to mention here was my new way of counting
"walking exercise calories".
My previous method used calories per minute and speed. For example, at
my current weight, the charts show that at my "power walk" speed I
burn 8.1 calories/minute.
On the other hand, for "slow walking and shopping" the same charts
show 3 calories/minute.
What's always bothered me about these numbers is that I often do
something in-between, so I am never sure if I am calculating fairly.
For example, if I am shopping but spending more than half my time
walking at power-walk speeds from store to store it seems like I am
not crediting enough exercise calories used.
On the other hand, if I'm out for a few hours shopping but have spent
half that time slowly gazing at large panel TV sets it seems that I'm
not really using 3 calories/minute doing that, so I am crediting
myself too much.
Plus, while on exercise walks I would like to be able to stop from
time to time and chat with neighbors and play with their dogs, etc.
So what I did was this:
My sister sent me a pedometer some time ago, which I hadn't used. I
started using it!
I "calibrated" it first by doing a 15 minute walk non-stop at my known
"power walk" speed. Thus I had a very good idea of how many calories I
used for the steps recorded on the pedometer. This comes to a little
more than 0.075 calories per step.
So lately when I go out I always clip on the pedometer and when I get
back record the steps. It makes going out on walking errands more fun!
(Note: I admire people who can do 10,000 steps a day. I think that
would be very very time-consuming!)
I have compared the "time method" with the "steps method" and have
found a very close correlation with the 8.1/3 figures above for when I
am constantly moving around at high speed or deliberately going at
"shopping speed". So this new way of calculating helps me take into
account the more usual kinds of outdoor walking excursions, which is a
mix of speeds, plus start and stopping.
doug
Stormmee - 26 Apr 2007 03:05 GMT
all good stuff, Lee
> Things seem to be going well the last couple of weeks. I've dropped
> about a lb a week each week. I'm still at 83.6 kg, which is higher
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> doug
Del Cecchi - 26 Apr 2007 04:30 GMT
> all good stuff, Lee
>> Things seem to be going well the last couple of weeks. I've dropped
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
>>
>> doug
I figure 100 calories times wt/150 per mile. for 250 lb that is 160
cal/mile or almost 11 cal/min at 4 mph. More like 9 at 3.5. So not that
different.
doug lerner - 26 Apr 2007 13:03 GMT
On Apr 26, 12:30 pm, "Del Cecchi" <delcecchioftheno...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > all good stuff, Lee
> >> Things seem to be going well the last couple of weeks. I've dropped
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
> cal/mile or almost 11 cal/min at 4 mph. More like 9 at 3.5. So not that
> different.
That makes sense. The nice thing about the pedometer method though is
that you can vary speeds and not have to keep track of time.
doug
Del Cecchi - 26 Apr 2007 19:00 GMT
> On Apr 26, 12:30 pm, "Del Cecchi" <delcecchioftheno...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
>
> doug
yes, I was agreeing with you. calories are dependent on distance and
not on speed.
del

Signature
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”
Mu - 27 Apr 2007 09:32 GMT
>> That makes sense. The nice thing about the pedometer method though is
>> that you can vary speeds and not have to keep track of time.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> del
http://www.howstuffworks.com/fpte.htm

Signature
http://www.steppenwolf.com/lyr/mnnster.html
alishadevochka@gmail.com - 27 Apr 2007 14:19 GMT
> > On Apr 26, 12:30 pm, "Del Cecchi" <delcecchioftheno...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 73 lines]
> yes, I was agreeing with you. calories are dependent on distance and
> not on speed.
I read some where that obese person like me 5'6 - 206lb can burn more
calories by walking slow. I am thinking of buying a pedemeter, and I
wonder which would be better for me.
> del
>
> --
> Del Cecchi
> "This post is my own and doesn't necessarily represent IBM's positions,
> strategies or opinions."
Gary G - 27 Apr 2007 15:58 GMT
Get the Omron HJ-112 Digital premium Pedometer...I have had 3...All lasted a
short time or were lost..This one has a extra retention line and has been
great...It cost around $18...Good luck...GG
>> > On Apr 26, 12:30 pm, "Del Cecchi" <delcecchioftheno...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 91 lines]
>> "This post is my own and doesn't necessarily represent IBM's positions,
>> strategies or opinions."
Laura - 26 Apr 2007 22:11 GMT
Good job getting the scale to move again. We've lost about the same amount
of weight and the scale is being stubborn for me too these days. Sometimes
our bodies just need time to catch up with the weight loss. Be patient,
change things up and you will get to goal.
> Things seem to be going well the last couple of weeks. I've dropped
> about a lb a week each week. I'm still at 83.6 kg, which is higher
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> doug
doug lerner - 27 Apr 2007 07:42 GMT
> Good job getting the scale to move again. We've lost about the same amount
> of weight and the scale is being stubborn for me too these days. Sometimes
> our bodies just need time to catch up with the weight loss. Be patient,
> change things up and you will get to goal.
I'm being patient. I figure, what choice do I have?
doug