Free Online Health

Simple Tips On Beating Obesity And Heart Disease
Welcome to Free Online Health Sign in | Join | Help Messenger
in Search
Winners Do What Losers Don't

Polar WM42

Last post 12-11-2007, 8:27 AM by Ray Kelly. 5 replies.
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  •  12-10-2007, 7:17 PM 45116

    Polar WM42

    Just have a question about the WM42 if anyone has one. After putting in all my details and what not its suggested my calorie intake per day should be 2400...which i thought was a bit high. Do they start you on a high number to get your metabolism going maybe?

    cw 99.9kg - taken clothed at WW 18/11/08 sw: 124.6kg Weight lost so far: 24.7kgs





  •  12-10-2007, 8:01 PM 45117 in reply to 45116

    Re: Polar WM42

    I did speak to Polar once about that but can't remember what they said. I just remember the cals they gave were pretty high.

    Maybe give them a call (Pursuit Performance - South Australia)

    Ray


    My new book: Winners Do What Losers Don't
  •  12-10-2007, 8:50 PM 45118 in reply to 45117

    Re: Polar WM42

    i was looking at the manual, and its just a bmi calculation between current and aim

    so yeah its just an approximation and by the looks of it a starting point which supposedly adjusts if you update the watch

    out of interest, using Rays calculators, what are your maintenance daily calories?

     

  •  12-10-2007, 10:42 PM 45120 in reply to 45118

    Re: Polar WM42

    Not sure where to go for them but in Ck to maintain its 2180..to lose 1680.

    i haven't been able to eat 2400 today - 1710 is as good as i can do. And i only done 209cals in exercise.

    I'll update my watch everyday and see how it goes for the first week or two and if its not working out i'll modify the cals i think.
     


    cw 99.9kg - taken clothed at WW 18/11/08 sw: 124.6kg Weight lost so far: 24.7kgs





  •  12-11-2007, 12:47 AM 45121 in reply to 45120

    Re: Polar WM42

    Just used Ray's calculator and Lana comes out at 2302kC.  I suspect the program starts trying to maximise the metabolism and modifies itself once it has some useful data to base its "decisions" on.  Of course I may be giving it too much credit........

    On the calculators Ray, do you use Harris-Benedict?  As a thought it might be good to add Katch-McArdle to allow for those that know their body fat percentage to get a better indicator.

    I've always wondered how the K-M formula can be considered the most accurate measure as it doesn't consider the total amount of weight that an individual is carrying.  I know that fat isn't metabolically active tissue but surely someone with 60kg of lean tissue and 50kg of fat would have to work harder (i.e. burn more) doing the same activities compared to someone with 60kg LBM and only 10kg of fat.  Any insight on this Ray?  I've tried to research it but to no avail so far.

  •  12-11-2007, 8:27 AM 45125 in reply to 45121

    Re: Polar WM42

    Yes, it's the Harris-Benedict. I used to include one's for body fat, gender, etc, but the main feedback I got was that there were so many it was too confusing so I've just stuck with the basic.

    Yes, you do burn more if you carry extra weight but this is considered within the calculation of the BMR. Obviously this equation is a very general estimate. There are a number of other things that should be considered too. The best way is to calculate your BMR, then just add aby general exercise/activity you do. Forget the really small stuff, just include the things you do for at least 30mins. You can use our Calories Burned calculator to work those out

    Ray


    My new book: Winners Do What Losers Don't
View as RSS news feed in XML
The New Me Weight Loss Retreat