Measuring Calorie Expenditure

[old] cityeast · Post by **[old] cityeast** » January 6th, 2005, 12:08 pm

Whenever I do a C2 session I use both the PM3/Laptop/Rowpro to monitor HR, in addition to my Polar 720i, which I also download to the laptop via the Polar Performance software. Here's the rub: The PM3 gave me exactly 1000 Calories for my 60min row last night. My Polar HRM told me I used 1191 kiloCalories for that hour. So: What is the difference between a Calorie and a kiloCalorie? Is this another metric/imperial discrepancy? Shouldn't there be an option for kCal measurement?Is there a conversion? Which is more accurate? The Polar takes into account my weight, I am not aware if the PM3 / Rowpro does.

[old] Steve_R · Post by **[old] Steve_R** » January 6th, 2005, 12:44 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (cityeast @ Jan 6 2005, 11:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>What is the difference between a Calorie and a kiloCalorie? Is this another metric/imperial discrepancy? Shouldn't there be an option for kCal measurement?Is there a conversion? Which is more accurate? The Polar takes into account my weight, I am not aware if the PM3 / Rowpro does. </td></tr></table> 1 Calorie=1kcal, which would not be the same as 1kCal which is equal to 1000Calorie=1000000calorie. The capital letter means 1000calories which is the unit or energy measured for food and the PM3. The Calorie expediture measured by the PM3 is based on 170lb average person. Your Polar should be more accurate for you. There is also a conversion table for your weight somewhere but I have always used the PM2/3 since I weigh just about 170lb. Steve

[old] cityeast · Post by **[old] cityeast** » January 6th, 2005, 1:24 pm

Thanks for the reply, I figured it was something simple. Yeah, I am 195lb , not 170ib, so that accounts for the discrepancy.

[old] little weed · Post by **[old] little weed** » January 6th, 2005, 2:14 pm

i've searched and searched for the conversion table that steve mentions, but i can't find it. does anyone know where it is please? jane

[old] Matt Farr · Post by **[old] Matt Farr** » January 6th, 2005, 10:12 pm

I think the calories converter he is referring to is the slide-rule form one that C2 used to produce and was available for ordering from the website. I don't think there is an on-line calorie converter anywhere...But I'm happy to be proven wrong!

[old] cityeast · Post by **[old] cityeast** » January 7th, 2005, 4:01 am

Well, unless someone else knows better, the calorie usage would be in linear proportion to your weight. Lets use my 1000 Calorie example from above. If you weigh 170lb, then that is probably what you used. If you weigh 205lb (20% more than 170lb), you probably used 1200 Cal ( I weight approx, 200lb, so my Polar result is very close to this) If you weigh 150lb (about 10% less), you probably burnt around 900 Calories. So at this stage the following calculation should get you close: PM3 Calorie Reading X (Your weight (lbs) divided by 170)

[old] little weed · Post by **[old] little weed** » January 7th, 2005, 6:29 am

boo hoo my 400 calorie workout wasn't quite what i thought then! jane

[old] cityeast · Post by **[old] cityeast** » January 7th, 2005, 7:06 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (little weed @ Jan 7 2005, 05:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> boo hoo my 400 calorie workout wasn't quite what i thought then! jane  </td></tr></table> Don't worry, its all relative. Someone who is smaller and/or weighs less, doesn't have to lose so much body fat to make a difference. if a 100kg, 185cm tall person loses 5 kg, they are not going to look soooo much different. However if a 165cm, 65kg person loses 5kg, then they are probably going to look a lot different. Always..ALWAYS... look on the bright side If you really need accurate readings, pick up Polar HRM that has OwnCal calorie measurement feature. These days the cheaper models even have this feature.

[old] little weed · Post by **[old] little weed** » January 7th, 2005, 7:47 am

thanks for that. certainly a much better way of looking at things! i'm going to get a heartrate monitor, chestbelt and watch asap...but i'm waiting till payday first jane

[old] LOVEBIRD · Post by **[old] LOVEBIRD** » January 13th, 2005, 3:35 pm

Hello, thought I might include something, most aerobic machines give the half truth regarding calorie burn/expenditure. The calories shown include calories burned during exercise plus metabolic rate, the calories which most people would burn anyways. This adds dramatically to the amount on the readout, which is why many people don't actually lose a lot of fat on aerobic machines even though the readout says they should be losing tons. There is another problem, the calories burned on the electronic monitor don't take into account, after calorie burn which can be far more than during exercise. It has to do with throwing the body out of whack, muscle turnover. As the body tries to recover after exercising, depending on how hard/intense the exercise is, this is very significant. In fact, strength training, and to a lesser extent rowing (because it uses more muscle mass than any other cardio machine) causes major calorie burn to continue up to 48 hours after exercise. There is no possible way for the Concept 2 to determine this during exercise, so it is quite inaccurate. Good luck, kick butt, DOGBONE

Concept2 Forum

Measuring Calorie Expenditure

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control

Weight Loss/ Weight Control