 Poster: A snowHead
|
Yes, but as you get fitter you do the same excercise but at a lower heart rate. Yet I'd presume that the energy used to do that exercise would be constant.
So how does your watch know how fit you are? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
No, because your sytem becomes more efficient the fitter you are, so requires less energy to perform the same exercise.
It doesn't tell you how fit you are - only your ave heart rate & your cals expended. I already know how fit I am
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Masque et al, tranquilo! The heart rate / cal count thing is not a skiing
thing, and in no way gets in the way of our enjoyment of the skiing and the mountains. Some us like to stay fit/get fitter, and use an HR monitor as part of our fitness programme every day (ok, some days). Just because we also use it on the slopes does not mean that we are dominated by numbers and achievements. I do NOT ski to get fit - it's just a really nice bonus to know that a great day on the mountain has done you far more good (both physically and mentally) than a 15 mile slog of a run. Appreciate that different people do and enjoy different things in different ways - not everyone has to think just like you to get the same buzz from the mountains. Different strokes etc. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I don' inc. HRMs in my rant 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
[quote="Lucie Axford"]No, because your sytem becomes more efficient the fitter you are, so requires less energy to perform the same exercise.
[quote]
Eh? OK, so you lift 1Kg up 1m in height. Doesn't it take just as much energy for you to make it move that distance as for a bloater to do it.
Or the other way round
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If that was so, why does my husband burn more calories than me when we do the same run/row etc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some bad vibes on this thread 
I too hate the pompous, boastful, load-mouthed toffs that we all have the misfortune to be trapped with in gondolas or buses, but I haven't seen anyone boasting on this thread. Stats can be interesting to some people, but that's not the reason they ski!
Lucie - your husband will burn more calories if he's heavier than you, as he has to use more energy to travel the same distance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| marc gledhill wrote: |
| Eh? OK, so you lift 1Kg up 1m in height. Doesn't it take just as much energy for you to make it move that distance as for a bloater to do it. |
No, I don't think so.
I'm no scientest, but I think that although it would require the same force to lift the weight, the bloater, who is unfit and whose body therefore works less efficiently, would need to use more energy to generate that force.
Imagine two cars of the same weight, one very fuel efficient and the other a real gas guzzler. In order for them both to travel 1 mile at the same speed, the gas guzzler will need to burn more fuel than the other (i.e. it is not as fit).
I've only just thought about this, so the analogy may well not hold up! I think we need a physiologist for a definitive answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, DavidS and I were clear frontrunners for the "best spat of the month" prize. No late challenges please, or I shall have to start having a go at 'U' or someone to ensure I stay out in front.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Efficiency is one thing, being heavier also means carrying your own weight. Even lifting that 1kg entails lifting a heavy arm that could be a lot more than 1kg heavier than someone else's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Lucie Axford, because he's heavier? If so it needs more energy to get him round.
The point I was leading to was that; I presume the watch works on the basis that you burn X calories per heart beat and so works it out from there. But how does it know what X is in every individuals case.
I am actually curious to find this out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| marc gledhill wrote: |
The point I was leading to was that; I presume the watch works on the basis that you burn X calories per heart beat and so works it out from there. But how does it know what X is in every individuals case.
I am actually curious to find this out. |
Good question Marc. I too have been curious about this. With my HRM the user enters details of their age, weight, height etc., and also information about their activity levels, so I presume it makes some sort of educated guess based on this data. It also claims to measure your fitness by measuring variations in your resting heart rate over a a 5 minute period, and this may well be thrown into the calculation too. However I do feel that we can rely too much on technology, and I doubt that such a device can ever be totally accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
The HRM will guess how many calories you've burned! It accurately knows how fast your heart is beating, and for how long, and how heavy you are. But it doesn't know how efficient (i.e. fit) you are. If you are fit you may have burned off 100 calories to generate enough force to perform a particular task, but if you are unfit you might burn off 200 calories to generate the same force, as you are less efficient.
The force required to lift a 1kg weight is the same for everyone, but the amount of energy (i.e. calories) each person requires to generate that force is different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Re: this heart rate monitor telling you how many calories you are burning, surely there are a few other things than work rate (calorie burn rate) that determine your heart rate, alititude for one.
When I was at 4750m my resting heart rate was around 110 - 120 and I can guarantee I wasn't burning too many calories at that rate.
Does the HRM conversion to calories per hour formula have an adjustment for altitude, or anything else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
marc gledhill, You can't unless you have a true baseline established inside an anerobic chamber (oxygen use, temperature differentials, calibrated energy output, waste etc.) Without that, all you can do is establish a personal baseline on any piece of equipment and use that as a reference to match to the HRM. Really all this does is give a measure to the amount of energy you’ve put INTO the machine against a median equation to give a calorie produced – NOT calories burnt by the body. But it is a good way to measure progress to fitness. HRMs use actuarial data in height /weight charts to calculate an estimate of calories used. The more data available for the equation, i.e. fat ratio, core temperatures, blood sugar levels etc. the more accurate the ‘calories used by the body’ count is.
Helps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Blimey - you lot are getting obsessive
I use my HRM calorie readings as a comparison only - I worked harder/skied more on holiday x compared to holiday y. I use it for personal interest only. I know my husband will burn more cals cos he's heavier, that was my point - a "bloater" will also burn more than me over any given exercise, as Dave Burt, rightly pointed out.
A HRM will not tell you how fit you are, it is down to personal interpretation of the data they provide over a period of time. If any of you want to pay me 40 quid an hour I will happily interpret that data on your behalf
It's not a spat, I think it's interesting to find out what people think & everyone has a right to their opinions & ask intelligent questions. I don't think anyone is being particularly obtuse (ok, maybe my abacus comment was a bit harsh!!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
£40 an hour ! ! ! ! ! ! !&*#@(*! things have changed since I was in the biz! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Lucie Axford, I don't think PG was talking about you/us, have a look at page 1. 
BTW, something heavier (not fatter) takes more energy to move. So he could be fitter than you, have a lower HR and still burn more calories for a given exercise. At £40 ph I presume you're a fittness guru.
Masque, yeah, didn't think it could be accurate without more detailed info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
OK. snowheads discount, I'll do it for £30 
Marc - I'm not vain enough to call myself a guru infact I spend more time behind a desk these days (or is that just because of my snowheads addiction??)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Lucie Axford wrote: |
Blimey - you lot are getting obsessive
It's not a spat, I think it's interesting to find out what people think & everyone has a right to their opinions & ask intelligent questions. I don't think anyone is being particularly obtuse (ok, maybe my abacus comment was a bit harsh!!) |
Crickey, you all keep irritating Lucie we're going to end up here at dawn
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues97/oct97/images/duel.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
