 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / November 2003Pedometers & walking
I bought a cheap electronic pedometer this afternoon. Just because something doesn't cost a lot is no excuse for poor quality, nor does it mean that its performance is necessarily better than something for which you have paid more money. However, I did some testing of the thing on a treadmill tonight, at various constant speeds, and I find that the count comes up continuously short. In other words, after 200 paces, the meter would read 188. After 50 paces, the meter would read 38, etc. So I'm wondering if any pedometer is really accurate or not. (My guess is that the little click thing may, or may not, vary in quality a great deal between cheap and expensive pedometers, but the electronics is all pretty much the same.) Also, I always thought it mattered more how long one exercised and whether they put their heart rate into the right zone. Some people in this group seem to be tied to the concept of how many miles. I'd like to hear any comments that anybody has towards being on the side of measuring how far as opposed to how long. Mike your watch is the best pedometer out there. you walk 1 hour, you know exactly that you walked for 1 hour! i > I bought a cheap electronic pedometer this afternoon. Just because something > doesn't cost a lot is no excuse for poor quality, nor does it mean that its [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Mike > I bought a cheap electronic pedometer this afternoon. Just because something > doesn't cost a lot is no excuse for poor quality, nor does it mean that its [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Mike AFAIK About the same calories are expended per mile of walking, jogging, running, whatever. The time differs though so you can burn the same calories quicker or slower. Also I believe more of the calories come from fat stores over long slower walking. More comes from glycogen during quick spurts of running.  SignatureSuzyQ Weight 124 WW Lifetime Membership Feb 03 > AFAIK About the same calories are expended per mile of walking, jogging, > running, whatever. The time differs though so you can burn the same > calories quicker or slower. Also I believe more of the calories come from > fat stores over long slower walking. More comes from glycogen during quick > spurts of running. According to CaloriesPerHour (http://www.caloriesperhour.com/): 1 hour of walking (for fitness, 3.5 mph) = 246 1 hour of jogging (general) = 454 1 hour of running (general) = 519 Signaturejmk in NC >> AFAIK About the same calories are expended per mile of walking, jogging, >> running, whatever. The time differs though so you can burn the same [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >1 hour of jogging (general) = 454 >1 hour of running (general) = 519 Same website: Stats: female, age 32, height 5'3", weight 125 1 mile of walking @2 mph = 71cals @3mph = 62 cals @4mph = 71 cals @5mph = 91 cals 1 mile of running @5mph = 91 cals @6mph = 94 cals @7mph = 87 cals @8mph = 89 cals The thing is - are you considering distance or time? Distance: If I walk my dog for 1 mile at a speed of 2mph (her preferred leisure walk allowing for ample sniff time) then it would take me 30 mins. Whereas if I jog for 1 mile at the Y, I can complete a mile in under 9 mins. Time: If I walk at a rate of 2mph, for 1 hr, I only burn 140 cals. Where as if I speed up and walk at a pace of 4mph for 1 hr, I burn 284. That's twice as many calories Whereas if I run at an average pace of 5mph for 1 hr, I'd burn 455 cals. Per mile, the calories burned is very close. But per time at a consistent speed, you burn incrementally greater amounts of calories. The faster you walk for a given amount of time, the more calories you burn. >>>AFAIK About the same calories are expended per mile of walking, jogging, >>>running, whatever. The time differs though so you can burn the same [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > The thing is - are you considering distance or time? Got it. I was thinking in PER HOUR and not PER MILE. Signaturejmk in NC >Also, I always thought it mattered more how long one exercised and whether >they put their heart rate into the right zone. Some people in this group >seem to be tied to the concept of how many miles. I'd like to hear any >comments that anybody has towards being on the side of measuring how far as >opposed to how long. Let's go to the science. Repeated citations show that 30-40 minutes of walking at a brisk pace is near perfect to address cardiovascular health issues. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. > >Also, I always thought it mattered more how long one exercised and whether > >they put their heart rate into the right zone. Some people in this group [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > walking at a brisk pace is near perfect to address cardiovascular > health issues. I have heard that 30~40 minutes suggestion time and again from doctors, nurses, etc. They say that the "zone" you want to be in is where it is difficult but not impossible for you to talk because you are out of breath. Eat less and exercise, no? I'm doing my exercise, at least. As far as food is concerned, I think I need to keep a log for a few days to see exactly what's going on. Actually weighing my food before I eat it is pretty enlightening. Mike >I have heard that 30~40 minutes suggestion time and again from doctors, >nurses, etc. They say that the "zone" you want to be in is where it is >difficult but not impossible for you to talk because you are out of breath. Walk quick, walk so you can talk and don't, at this time, sweat the details. The body rewards movement. Move. >Eat less and exercise, no? I'm doing my exercise, at least. As far as food >is concerned, I think I need to keep a log for a few days to see exactly >what's going on. Actually weighing my food before I eat it is pretty >enlightening. Go for it. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. > I bought a cheap electronic pedometer this afternoon. Just because something > doesn't cost a lot is no excuse for poor quality, nor does it mean that its > performance is necessarily better than something for which you have paid > more money. However, I did some testing of the thing on a treadmill tonight, > at various constant speeds, and I find that the count comes up continuously > short. Me, I'm curious about your time-frame. It's 3:40 pm Eastern time as I read this and you're purportedly in California where it's just past noon on Wednesday and this post did > Me, I'm curious about your time-frame. Oops, I tried to delete this. I realized the post was dated 3:40 AM not 3:40 pm suddenly. I was trying to figure out how you'd managed to buy something "this afternoon" and use it "this evening" when it was lunch-time. I know I hadn't seen this thread last night before I went to bed... Wendy > > Me, I'm curious about your time-frame. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Wendy My hours of awakeness are 7am to 2am, more or less. If you see a 3:40am time stamp, it is because I posted at 3:40am your time, not mine. Either that or the Internet is some sort of space/time vortex. I have to go, President Lincoln is about to speak on the telespace viewscreen and I have to break out of doublespeed for the real-time broadcast. -- Mike >> Me, I'm curious about your time-frame. > >Oops, I tried to delete this. I realized the post was dated 3:40 AM >not 3:40 pm suddenly. You are making a fool of yourself. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. >Me, I'm curious about your time-frame. It's 3:40 pm Eastern time as I >read this and you're purportedly in California where it's just past noon >on Wednesday and this post did Obsessed with Mu, aren't you Marsden. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. > So I'm wondering if any pedometer is really accurate or not. And you're also leary of measuring calories and of the accuracy of scales... you seem too focused on the noise. Look at the big picture. You don't need a pedometer except as a sort of biofeedback device, i.e., if measuring something will make you do more of it then by all means use a pedometer to help get yourself moving. You don't need to count calories unless counting calories is a way for you to carefully examine everything you're eating and thereby become a restrained eater who consciously chooses good foods. You don't need to measure your weight unless measuring your weight influences you to behave differently, i.e., cut back on calories or go back to logging foods or increase exercise levels. A "pants-o-meter" is just as good at that sort of fuzzy system measurements, too. What you do need to do is figure out how to eat less on a regular basis and how to integrate moving more into your life. Don't get too caught up in the details. Make steady progress and lose some fat while you're doing it and you'll get there eventually. Wendy >What you do need to do is figure out how to eat less on a regular basis. He has, Marsden. Pay attention. http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970827.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. >>What you do need to do is figure out how to eat less on a regular basis. > He has, Marsden. Pay attention. Must have missed it. I saw him piddling around with a stupid fad diet - did he get past that yet? Wendy >>>What you do need to do is figure out how to eat less on a regular basis. > >>He has, Marsden. Pay attention. > > Must have missed it. I saw him piddling around with a stupid fad diet - > did he get past that yet? Stupid? Did you say stupid? Dr. Chung is a well-respected doctor who has devoted his life to selfless caring for those in need. He preaches at people. He gets them to eat a near starvation 2 pounds of food per day to save some for everybody else and mountain climbers. He regularly repasts that very long diatribe that he has made into a macro that just demands just a few pushes of some of those buttons on his computer typing thing. Dr. Chung is an second base umpire for little league football games. He is also a world-renowned teacher of dodgeball for the blind. The good doctor spends hours each day doing aerobic exercises like evading questions, hurling imprecations, jumping to false conclusions, and flying off the handle. You do not deserve to bask in his reflected glory. But if you do decide to, wear your sunscreen. There is nothing worse than a reflected glory sunburn, especially if you have fair skin or red hair. What were we saying? Mu_stard Plaster (The 100% real one) >>>What you do need to do is figure out how to eat less on a regular basis. > >> He has, Marsden. Pay attention. > >Must have missed it. Surely you jest. http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp > I saw him piddling around with a stupid fad diet - >did he get past that yet? > >Wendy What diet is that? http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970827.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. >>>>What you do need to do is figure out how to eat less on a regular basis. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What diet is that? I believe she's referring to my amazing diet that defies the laws of physics and good sense as we now know them. You know which one she is talking about. At this point, yes, it is a fad diet. When the recalcitrant medical community finally grasps the simplicity of it, I am certain they will flock to it. It will then not be a fad at all. It will be a new craze. Can you not see the improvement that would be? SignatureDr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Braid-Certified Cardiotechnician http://www.heartmdphd.com >> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >am certain they will flock to it. It will then not be a fad at all. It >will be a new craze. Can you not see the improvement that would be? Ball is in your court, Andrew http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970827.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. > >> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970827.html > Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. Report the imposter to its ISP. They should know who else to notify. -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ On pedometer accuracy, besides needing the correct length between strides, it must be at the right spot on your body to keep an accurate count. Try counting paces of 30, then checking the number and switching the spot right or left. Repeat. Once you know the most accurate spot, it should be better on counting the number of steps. > On pedometer accuracy, besides needing the correct length between > strides, it must be at the right spot on your body to keep an accurate > count. Try counting paces of 30, then checking the number and > switching the spot right or left. Repeat. Once you know the most > accurate spot, it should be better on counting the number of steps. It also helps to use more than 10 steps to determine your stride length. I used 1000 ft. - the centerline of my driveway to the centerline of the road that intersects mine as determined by DH the land surveyor. My pedometer does both running and walking strides. Experimenting has demonstrated it's pretty darn close, or at least close enough for my purposes. Jenn > It also helps to use more than 10 steps to determine your stride length. I > used 1000 ft. - the centerline of my driveway to the centerline of the road [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jenn Out of curiosity, did you determine that your stride was half your height? Anyone else? SignatureWalking on . . . Laurie in Maine 207/110 60 inches of attitude! Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03 > > It also helps to use more than 10 steps to determine your stride length. > I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Out of curiosity, did you determine that your stride was half your height? > Anyone else? My walking stride turned out to be less than half my height but I have relatively short legs for my height. SignatureJenn 300/145 in maintenance since 10/28/03 Living well is the best revenge >> Out of curiosity, did you determine that your stride was half your height? >> Anyone else? > >My walking stride turned out to be less than half my height but I have >relatively short legs for my height. FWIW, my stride is 2ft 2 inches and I am 5ft 6 tall. This was measured on flat ground. When using a pedometer, you need to remember that your stride varies in length over rough ground, going up steep hills, etc. janice > >> Out of curiosity, did you determine that your stride was half your height? > >> Anyone else? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > up steep hills, etc. > janice My walking stride is 2 ft, 5 inches and I'm almost 5'5". It's the same thing with running. My running stride is 3.5 ft. as done over 1000 ft. Even that wasn't long enough to take into consideration the differences over the course of a long run and the hills. Pedometers are good for estimating. I like it when I travel so I get a better idea of the distance covered and I like it for a daily tally. There are some days when I think I've gotten up and around enough and the pedometer keeps me in check. There are other days I am flat out exhaused and then I check the pedometer and see that I've really been moving all day long. YMMV (literally) SignatureJenn 300/145 in maintenance since 10/28/03 Living well is the best revenge |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.