Anyone have a BodyBug?

[GopherLady]

I think that's what they're called - they're the monitors that tell you your heart rate, how many calories you've burned a day, etc. I was wondering if any of you had them, if so, what are you experiences with them?

I also understand there's some sleep component to some of them, what exactly does that do?

One more question, if you do like them, where is a good place to get one, at a decent price?

Thanks in advance!

[Schnoodler]

I thought I had a body bugs once. I didn't.

As a side note. If I had known they were as talented as all that though I would have tried harder to get them.

[Caravan Shaker]

Much like your trip to Europe question, I'm afraid my response isn't going to answer your question directly; I've never heard of a BodyBug :o. However, there have been some studies suggesting that a simple pedometer is an inexpensive tool that helps to increase activity levels. JAMA had a review article a year or so ago summarizing these results if you wanted to read more about it.

[GopherLady]

Much like your trip to Europe question, I'm afraid my response isn't going to answer your question directly; I've never heard of a BodyBug :o. However, there have been some studies suggesting that a simple pedometer is an inexpensive tool that helps to increase activity levels. JAMA had a review article a year or so ago summarizing these results if you wanted to read more about it.

Thanks, Caravan - if you had the link to that study, it would be helpful. I've heard from some friends that it's really good because it tells you total calories burned in a day - so you can see how much you have to go, or realize how much the little things add up if you do them (like parking far away, taking the long way, etc). They also said that you realize your fat burning zone is lower that you think. Like, when I'm workout, I usually feel like I'm working hard when my HR is 150-165, when you actually burn more when you're at 120 or so.

However, I'm asking you all, because neither of them has lost any weight - so as great as it sounds, if it doesn't really get results, it's not worth dropping $150-$200!

[Caravan Shaker]

Thanks, Caravan - if you had the link to that study, it would be helpful.

The article can be found here. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/298/19/2296) I quickly glanced at some of the articles it references, the general gist seems to be that pedometers can quickly gauge how much activity you have normally, and then it's easy to set a goal to walk more than that by 5%, 10%, etc. I can't comment on the fat burning zone because I don't know anything about that, but it is true that the little things like those you mentioned can make a big difference. That's the nice thing about pedometers; they're cheap, and although it can't tell you how many extra calories you're burning, it can tell you how much farther you've walked (or climbed stairs) than normal so you know if you're reaching your target activity level. Dr. Stovitz (http://www.fp.umn.edu/fm/research/faculty/stovitz.html) did a study with pedometers at the U (found here (http://www.jabfm.org/cgi/content/full/18/5/335?ijkey=2f8f7b2857791eac6f6a92f69daa5aaebb2527ca )) so maybe you could email him and see if he has any thoughts about the BodyBug, it seems that he has an active research interest in these types of things. Maybe he knows about the fat burning zone thing, too. Just don't blame me if he accuses you of spamming him :).

[GopherLady]

You're amazing! Thank you - are you a doctor or something? I will read both of those later tonight!

[Caravan Shaker]

You're amazing! Thank you - are you a doctor or something? I will read both of those later tonight!

I am, and I have the student loan debt to prove it :(.

I've been thinking about the fat burning zone, and it just doesn't make physiologic sense to me. You should definitely burn more calories when working harder (i.e. faster heart rate). So I really don't understand why it'd say you are burning more at a lower rate.

[Schnoodler]

When it comes to weight loss the devil is in the details. some day we will discard our notion of caloric intake and expenditure when we quit trying to explain why they should work and start focusing on what actually does work.

[GopherLady]

I am, and I have the student loan debt to prove it :(.

I've been thinking about the fat burning zone, and it just doesn't make physiologic sense to me. You should definitely burn more calories when working harder (i.e. faster heart rate). So I really don't understand why it'd say you are burning more at a lower rate.

That's what I thought too - so when I'm on those machines, I always gauge my performance on how many calories I burned, which is usually a result of how much my heart rate is pumping. You're a doctor, so you'd know better than me - but I do know, if I select "Fat burn" on one of the machines, it always tells me to lower my heart rate. Someone told me that's because at a high heart rate you're burning muscles, and lower you're burning fat. Doesn't seem right to me either...I'm like, why am I busting my butt to burn 550 calories in 40 minutes, when I could just burn 400!?

[Schnoodler]

The body can't metabolize fat fast enough in a high demand situation. It has other methods for dealing with that. It really can't even keep up on a lower demand workout. Exercise is an important component to overall health, and hugely effective at keeping weight off, just way overstated but still effective as a weight loss technique. Increasing movement throughout the day is probably just as effective if not more than working out. You could still do both. It's a part of the calorie myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

And for our doctor friend:

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/134/4/968S

[Dr.Don]

My arms are in excellent shape from continuously lifting light weights for long periods of time on a daily basis. 12 ounces at a time, and it is very successful. It's a health food member of the grain group.

[Schnoodler]

it's a brilliant strategy DOC. not only do your arms keep in excellent shape but you body is smart enough to store the unsused nutirition for future arm lifting. Efficiency in action. Well done, Don.

[Dr.Don]

Thank you Schnoods, and it is also very effective at keeping any unwanted body bugs away. And I do NOT suffer from repetitive motion syndrome.

[Caravan Shaker]

The body can't metabolize fat fast enough in a high demand situation. It has other methods for dealing with that. It really can't even keep up on a lower demand workout. Exercise is an important component to overall health, and hugely effective at keeping weight off, just way overstated but still effective as a weight loss technique. Increasing movement throughout the day is probably just as effective if not more than working out. You could still do both. It's a part of the calorie myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluconeogenesis

And for our doctor friend:

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/134/4/968S

Schnoodler, I'm not sure where you got your information. Exercise certainly does utilize fat metabolism and, in fact, training increases the utilization of fats and decreases glucose oxidation as a means for energy (see http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/81/5/2182 for more detail). Secondly, gluconeogenesis only contributes a to a small proportion of glucose catabolism during exercise (at least for the first hour or so), the vast majority of which arises from glycogenolysis, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogenolysis) unless you happen to be a type 1 diabetic. Regular exercise has also shown improvements in health, regardless of weight loss. Finally, I have no idea what you mean by the calorie myth, but judging by the article you linked I'm assuming you mean that high protein/low carb diets are better for weight loss. This subject is still controversial, and there isn't a consensus on whether this is true because there have been many conflicting studies. I'm of the opinion that a calorie is a calorie, as all the long tern studies that I've read have shown that there is no difference between diets with regard to weight loss. Just last week in the NEJM there was a rather comprehensive study with the same conclusions (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/9/859). However, I could be wrong; it's certainly happened before, and it will certainly happen again. Frankly, I'm not interested in hijacking this thread any further than I already have, so GL if you have any more questions feel free to PM me and I'll try my best to answer them. And Doc, I'm impressed that you've been able to lift those weights with both arms, I only seem coordinated enough to do it with my right.

[Schnoodler]

Just saying there's alot of disagreement out there, and the medical practice is generally quite a few steps behind. As I've said the devil is in the details. These are the details. It's easy to explain why something should work. It's a lot tougher to discard ideas that run up against real life results and then seek answers why it works in unexpected ways. Always been my beef with the medical establishment, always will be.

The calorie myth, is a bit of a misnomer to get one thinking. In the end it is about intake and expenditure. The real problem is that this simple hypothesis tends to lead to over simplistic and ineffective application. It ignores how the body works and adapts. This is a perfect example. By simple induction it is argued that the harder you work the more fat you burn. And while the net is still positive it is far less effective than a lower stress workout which is probably better for you, and more sustainable in the long run.

And I'd recheck your weight loss studies, and who sponsors them. I'll tell you right now the least effective one is the one pushed by most health care practices. I've read these studies and they are typically skewed quite heavily. Incidently the most effective is not the lo-carb. for instance in one study they set the lo-carb/high protein on a 100gram carb limit. i can tell you right now, the worst diet is the middle ground lo carb effort. you need to be under 60 a day for minimal effect, under 20 for maximum. They essentially put the lo/carb group on what i would consider a weight gain program. And they called that a comparable study. Now they did limit fats, and so there was still weight loss. They really in essense studied different variations of the same diet, the distinctions simply wasn't broad enough. so, of course in that study they failed to find much difference. In all studies, all diets work and that's the good news. So in the end, it probably is less important which diet you're on and more important that you're on one you can stay on.

[Dr.Don]

Schnoodler, you stated, and I quote:

"So in the end, it probably is less important which diet you're on and more important that you're on one you can stay on."

I agree 100%.