PDA

View Full Version : Any BodyBugg users shocked by initial results?



toadcrack
10-17-2011, 06:48 AM
WOW.

Got one of these with the $69 deal on 24hourfitness a while back and am SHOCKED at how many calories I'm burning.

I'm 5'11, 175ish at ~17% BF and, using Katch-McCardell had calculated my maintenance at about 2800 cal/day.

I lift 3 days/week and endurance train 3 days/week (one of which is a 10+ mile run), with 1 day full rest.

Basically what I've found is I'm burning 3500-4000 cals/day on workout days and 2800-3000 just on my rest day.

I guess with Katch-McCardell the activity factor is subjective....perhaps I was underestimating in that regard.

Anyone else seen similar results?

On that note, I now have to believe that I've been undereating severely given my activity level....I'd been doing 2200-3000 cals/day.

Christiffer
10-17-2011, 06:50 AM
Most people have the same results you did. They realize they were under eating. (just keep in mind these things aren't 100% accurate)

ko300zx
10-17-2011, 06:55 AM
I'm shocked when people are shocked by these toys.

lovingit
10-17-2011, 06:59 AM
Katch-McArdle isn't off. You simply used the wrong calculations (activity factor and/or bf%, etc)

I get the same thing with my BodyMedia Fit as I do with Katch-McArdle, give or take 50 calories.

toadcrack
10-17-2011, 09:03 AM
Katch-McArdle isn't off. You simply used the wrong calculations (activity factor and/or bf%, etc)

I get the same thing with my BodyMedia Fit as I do with Katch-McArdle, give or take 50 calories.

Yeah - I can only think I underestimated the activity factor for Katch-McArdle....which is really subjective (what I consider extra active or "hard" exercise may not apply to what someone else thinks is extra active or "hard" exercise."

For example, for the 2800 maintenance I used an activity factor multiplier of 1.625 (1/2 way between "moderate" and "very" active).

However on a day I ran a moderately hilly 5 mile run, the BodyBugg said I burned ~3500 calories which, if using the Katch-McArdle activity factor multiplier, would be the 1.9 that's considered "extra active." (on an 11 mile run day it bumps up 4000 calories which would be over 2 as the multiplier).

...or, as noted, perhaps the Body Fat % I used for Katch-McArdle was a little off (it was the average of a self-administered caliper test and a tape measurements test).

Interesting little device, no doubt.

ko300zx
10-17-2011, 09:06 AM
Yeah - I can only think I underestimated the activity factor for Katch-McArdle....which is really subjective (what I consider extra active or "hard" exercise may not apply to what someone else thinks is extra active or "hard" exercise."

For example, for the 2800 maintenance I used an activity factor multiplier of 1.625 (1/2 way between "moderate" and "very" active).

However on a day I ran a moderately hilly 5 mile run, the BodyBugg said I burned ~3500 calories which, if using the Katch-McArdle activity factor multiplier, would be the 1.9 that's considered "extra active." (on an 11 mile run day it bumps up 4000 calories which would be over 2 as the multiplier).

...or, as noted, perhaps the Body Fat % I used for Katch-McArdle was a little off (it was the average of a self-administered caliper test and a tape measurements test).

Interesting little device, no doubt.

IRRELEVANT

Katch-McArdle is a tool for ESTIMATING expenditure for the average individual. You would not be shocked by your gadget readings if you would have properly figured out your maintenance through trial and error.

IrishPilot
10-17-2011, 09:16 AM
Shocked? No. Somewhat surprised? Yes. I was one of those people who didnt get the great news that I was grossly underestimating. I was actually about spot on (and therefore somewhat bummed lol). Still love my BMF Core though. Its proving the be a great resource to see approximately where my burn differs on lifting days, cardio days, rest/off days, etc. Worth every penny thus far.

djsaad1
10-17-2011, 11:04 AM
WOW.

Got one of these with the $69 deal on 24hourfitness a while back and am SHOCKED at how many calories I'm burning.

I'm 5'11, 175ish at ~17% BF and, using Katch-McCardell had calculated my maintenance at about 2800 cal/day.

I lift 3 days/week and endurance train 3 days/week (one of which is a 10+ mile run), with 1 day full rest.

Basically what I've found is I'm burning 3500-4000 cals/day on workout days and 2800-3000 just on my rest day.

I guess with Katch-McCardell the activity factor is subjective....perhaps I was underestimating in that regard.

Anyone else seen similar results?

On that note, I now have to believe that I've been undereating severely given my activity level....I'd been doing 2200-3000 cals/day.


I am just jealous. I am 5'10 165lbs 8% BF and get to 2100-2300 on rest days and 2700-3000 on workout days. I wish I could get close to the 4k mark on a daily basis.

toadcrack
10-17-2011, 01:16 PM
I am just jealous. I am 5'10 165lbs 8% BF and get to 2100-2300 on rest days and 2700-3000 on workout days. I wish I could get close to the 4k mark on a daily basis.

Keep in mind on the 4000 day I ran 11 miles...and on the 3500 day I ran a hilly 5 mile course.

Pending speed/effort/etc, running for an average-sized male expends 100-150 calories per mile.

djsaad1
10-17-2011, 07:18 PM
Keep in mind on the 4000 day I ran 11 miles...and on the 3500 day I ran a hilly 5 mile course.

Pending speed/effort/etc, running for an average-sized male expends 100-150 calories per mile.

I ran 3.5 miles yesterday morning and did a weight workout yesterday afternoon and still barely got to 3000. I only burn about 75-80 calories an hour when I am not doing anything. Not sure if it is because my body fat is low, or if this is just who I am. But since I am on a bulk, I am not worrying about it. My next cut is going to be hard though

csfb36
10-17-2011, 08:09 PM
I was suprised that i burn about 4800-5000 calories on days im at work i was grossly underestimating the calories I needed but all is well now strength gains are through the roof.

LuisEnrikee
10-17-2011, 08:33 PM
I thought I was burning 2,700 on workout days, turns out it's ~3,000. On off days I burn like ~2,000. Not really surprised but I like knowing how many calories I burn.

spicyprice
10-17-2011, 10:57 PM
IRRELEVANT

Katch-McArdle is a tool for ESTIMATING expenditure for the average individual. You would not be shocked by your gadget readings if you would have properly figured out your maintenance through trial and error.

I would disagree with your point simply due to adaptation. Your maintenance will change based on your eating history. Due to gross underestimation of activity and eating at that and lower for a long time, I would have told you my maintenance was 1800-2000 at 146lb based on the scale not moving at that weight. come to find out, usinf BB, I realized that my workout days were close to 2800 and do absoluely nothing (in my mind, doing nothing) was more like 2300-2500.
The BB and calculations are definitely an estimation, but compared to the BB, it leaves far more things in the air for error an subjectivity.

determined4000
10-17-2011, 11:21 PM
I thought I was burning 2,700 on workout days, turns out it's ~3,000. On off days I burn like ~2,000. Not really surprised but I like knowing how many calories I burn.Unless your WO consists of running a marathon, I highly doubt you burn 1.5x more calories on WO days

adamg8504
10-18-2011, 04:06 AM
I just got my BMF registered and working yesterday after work (4:10 pm). I put it on and went to go work out. I did chest for about an hour then did 30 minutes of a mixture of fast uphill walking and jogging. Plugged it back in this morning and had the Activity Manager estimate that my activity while the BMF was off my arm (from 5:30am - 4:10pm) that my activity was sedentary (which is obviously conservative). It had my burn at ~3100 kcals. I thought my maintenance was around 2500 but I did go through a period where I was under eating which might have had an impact on my maintenance. For the past few months I have been eating more and saw an initial jump in when but have seen it kind of hold steady at around 181 2lb. I'll be interested to see how much I burn while having it on all day.

Oh and the sleep data is pretty cool too!

ko300zx
10-18-2011, 06:09 AM
I would disagree with your point simply due to adaptation. Your maintenance will change based on your eating history. Due to gross underestimation of activity and eating at that and lower for a long time, I would have told you my maintenance was 1800-2000 at 146lb based on the scale not moving at that weight. come to find out, usinf BB, I realized that my workout days were close to 2800 and do absoluely nothing (in my mind, doing nothing) was more like 2300-2500.
The BB and calculations are definitely an estimation, but compared to the BB, it leaves far more things in the air for error an subjectivity.

You maintenance is forever changing. It changes daily. It also changes as you add mass or lose mass. Therefore, adaptation must occur as well. This is nothing new. I also find it very hard to believe that over an extended period of time your body weight stayed exactly the same on 2800 calories as it did on 1800.