The Fat Loss TroubleshootThis is your place to troubleshoot your fat loss problems from nutrition to training. This section is led by Leigh Peele, author of "The Fat Loss Troubleshoot," the ultimate fat loss manual. If your results have slowed or stalled this is the place to come for advice for all your fat loss needs.
I have been reading around about the Gowear fit but I can't get through that whole great long thread that you guys have running here so forgive me if this is already covered somewhere else. But from what I have read people are often expressing surprise (and pleasure!) about how many calories they actually burn according to the GOwear fit, through NEAT etc -maybe in excess of 3000cal for some women who are on their feet all day. But then I am also seeing people say that according to the Gowear fit they have a big deficit compared to calorie intake, but are not seeing any weight loss. So the obvious qustion - what makes everyone so sure that this device is accurate and not massively overestimating burn?
I am considering getting one, but I am in the UK and it would be troublesome for me to obtain it so I want to be sure that it is worth it. I currently wear a pedometer and I am pretty active in terms of NEAT (for example it is 9pm here and I have done 18,000 steps today) but guessing based on what I am able to get away with eating before I start to put on weight, I am not sure I would have anything like 3000cal burn.
As I say, sorry if this has been done to death, but I would appreciate any comments.
Either here or on her site Leigh talks a bit, something like an error rate of up to …10% maybe? or something along those lines. As in, likely more accurate than just a formula, but since it can't track some things well (like, say, being on a bicycle) and has a general margin of error… it can be off some. Also, they state not necessarily accurate for people with high bf or bmi (one or the other, or maybe both).
The problem some people have is thyroid issues as well… which I'd guess it can't track as well that you're just chemically …off …metabolically speaking.
So… pretty accurate but within a margin of error is the usual consensus.
I think some of it they state themselves somewhere.
Leigh's you'd have to see where she says… she has a lot of clients and they use them (and the bodybugg before it) and so I think at least partly is based on that.
Remember that in the end, everything is using estimates and formulas… and no matter how careful you are about your intake… those calorie amounts are estimates from sampling and therefore also subject to margin of error (assuming you're getting the right info in the first place, even). So at the end of the day… it's all about the individual and how you observe your trend is relative to what your "illusion" of your burn and consumption is. So, it is certainly useful for that. You can learn what you "burn" and track that with what you "consume" and figure out what difference between those 2 numbers you need for the results you want… precisely accurate or not. ya know?
If you get it you'll likely find it useful and a big help… but it remains to be seen how closely the number it gives you matches "truth." But, it's variance will be stable and not all over the place, so that's helpful at least.
I don't have one and while having contemplated it a few times (or more) at the end of the day, I find it really doesn't matter and there are more important things on my list to spend my money on. I basically do what it does… guess based on some numbers and figure out what I need to do based on the results I get. It works for me. Which means I haven't studied up too much on it, just remembering based on previous posts and things I've read and whatnot… so I can't think of any link in particular other than the thread you've already seen and a general "Leigh's site" direction when it comes to documentation. (LeighPeele.com or flzine.com would be those sites)
Sorry can't help more… but from what I've seen, most people find it pretty accurate, it's only a few people that seem to have big disparities going on… at least around here. You may want to check out one used, perhaps less investment.
I'm pretty comfortable with the readings from mine. I've been wearing it for 4 months now, and based on deficit, weight loss about right. As stated it seems to underestimate certain activities, notably bike riding, yoga, pilates, maybe to some extent strength training. But readings for cardio pretty close to my treadmill or a heart monitor.
The biggest benefit is that I am so aware of my activity outside of working out. I have made many little changes (parking far away, using stairs, not hanging on the couch as much) because of this gadget. I want to hit my burns for the day, and will move more to make that happen. And, that knowledge is priceless.
I think some of it they state themselves somewhere.
Remember that in the end, everything is using estimates and formulas… and no matter how careful you are about your intake… those calorie amounts are estimates from sampling and therefore also subject to margin of error (assuming you're getting the right info in the first place, even). So at the end of the day… it's all about the individual and how you observe your trend is relative to what your "illusion" of your burn and consumption is. So, it is certainly useful for that. You can learn what you "burn" and track that with what you "consume" and figure out what difference between those 2 numbers you need for the results you want… precisely accurate or not. ya know?
If you get it you'll likely find it useful and a big help… but it remains to be seen how closely the number it gives you matches "truth." But, it's variance will be stable and not all over the place, so that's helpful at least.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I know that nothing will be 100% accurate but formulas etc are at least free. For the money and the claims made, I would expect something more elaborate than just a formula. Also, if there is inaccuracy I am not sure that you can assume variance is stable - without knowing the causes of the inaccuracy, variance could be very different from day to day depending on the individual and the activities they are doing. For example if it does underestimate cycling then cycling 2h one day will show up as a much bigger error than on a day when you did nothing.
Quote:
But readings for cardio pretty close to my treadmill or a heart monitor.
The biggest benefit is that I am so aware of my activity outside of working out. I have made many little changes (parking far away, using stairs, not hanging on the couch as much) because of this gadget. I want to hit my burns for the day, and will move more to make that happen. And, that knowledge is priceless.
It's good that it matches with your treadmill. It's true about what you say about increasing activity but then I can get that same information from my pedometer which was considerably cheaper.
I have looked on their website and they cite a single study as evidence of accuracy. I only have access to the abstract of that study but it looked at 14 individuals over 2h which is not very extensive. I am not saying all this to be awkward (I can feel everyone saying "well don't get one if you don't like it!). It's just I would love this to be good and work accurately but I have a scientific background and I am a little sceptical that they can sell it based on so little apparent evidence.
It's good that it matches with your treadmill. It's true about what you say about increasing activity but then I can get that same information from my pedometer which was considerably cheaper.
You're right. I've also considered getting one but I have a polar f6 heartrate monitor that gives me a calories burned estimate for a lot less money than the gowear fit plus subscription rates. Given, its not quite the same; I can't watch my calories all day, I don't have a detailed website to go to and see nifty graphs, its just an estimate when I press end. Ultimately, its just more money than I'm willing to spend to basically tell me numbers I more or less already know.
If I had a good amount of disposable income though, or I was really finding losing difficult and didn't know why, I would likely try it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Dog
Plus, my desire to remain stunningly attractive outweighs the call of the cheesecake. mostly...
ok so now I am feeling like maybe I shouldnt have ordered this. Maybe I wont open it and send it back???
No no no! Lots of people have it and absolutely love it! If you thought it was worth it enough to order it at least give it a chance!
These things are all personal opinion; how I weigh the costs and benefits will be different from how you do. Income, priorities, hassle factor (I may end up feeling like I need to write those graphs myself!), which and how many difficulties you may be experiencing; these all fall into play here and everybody rates them all differently. Trust yourself!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Dog
Plus, my desire to remain stunningly attractive outweighs the call of the cheesecake. mostly...
Thanks for the detailed reply. I know that nothing will be 100% accurate but formulas etc are at least free. For the money and the claims made, I would expect something more elaborate than just a formula. Also, if there is inaccuracy I am not sure that you can assume variance is stable - without knowing the causes of the inaccuracy, variance could be very different from day to day depending on the individual and the activities they are doing. For example if it does underestimate cycling then cycling 2h one day will show up as a much bigger error than on a day when you did nothing.
It is more elaborate than "just" a formula. It has a 3axis accelerometer, it measures your heartrate and body temp, and other things. So… it's taking in a lot of variables to make its formula it uses… based on those factors (way more than just your height, weight, age, and sex), and spits out something that's been pretty close to accurate for most of the people on the board who have it.
Now some people find the HB formula and whatnot perfectly working fine, are losing just fine, and don't have a reason to bother (like me) because what they're doing is working so they can spend their money on something else. For others, they have issues and get it and find they burn significantly more/less than they thought and it's helped set them on the road of loss because of that. Some people also find it a motivational tool… in part because it'll give you a number to shoot for, in part because they spent the money they might as well use it.
It's a lot like a gym membership or even owning fitness equipment at home… you can do the job perfectly well without it… and people have for a very long time… but for some it's a neat tool in their arsenal and works great for them. Other people don't think a gym membership is worth it for $30/month when they can take walks for free, do pushups for free, and buy a $30 bar for pullups (spent only once).
I believe it'd be a great tool for me if I got it… but like a gym membership at the moment… I just don't want to spend that level of cashola when I'm seeing results without it. *shrug* yvmv
The 10% +/- is actually from bodymedia's own research. They post it on their web site.
As for accuracy - I find the Gowear very accurate for me. I base this on how many calories the GWF estimates I burn, how many calories I put in and compare that to how many pounds I have lost.
I love it because I do not have a very easy to quantify day. Some days my job pins me down and even with exercise my burn is fairly low. But the very next day my burn might be as much as 800 calories more. Having the GWF means I can keep tabs on what is going on throughout the day and I am not just guessing and getting it wrong. Over time I have been able to see patterns in the data that make it easier to plan for what is to come.
I have to agree. I'm really happy I puchased it & it has been one of my more valuable fitness tools. For me, it keeps me eating at maintanence because I've learned that when I was eating intuitively, I was falling short.....
I am really interested though in learning more about the accuracy with people with the thyroid issues. I'm hypothyroid and may have some pituary issues going on (seeing an endo in Sept) but would love to read more up on that if anyone has the link. I will check Leigh's site. I'm surprised I missed it though! LOL!
To the above op, don't regret ordering it. I sat on the fence forever. It's worth it for the knowledge alone you learn about your metabolism, sleep patterns, and activity. At least I think so anyway!
Along with my ipod nano and my HRM this has been my best fitness purchase.
Even with a 10% inaccuracy, say in both the GWF and my calorie counting, I can still have a noticeable deficit.
Actually, that would be a fun calculation to plug into Excel. I love stuff like that.
It's been exactly 2 weeks for me and 5 lbs gone, none of which were quick "start of diet" losses.
I am seeing a possible innaccuracy in my gym cardio as I use the ArcTrainer (no arms.) The first workout I did with the GWF and the ArcTrainer appeared within 10 calories of my Polar HRM. Yesterday I did 35 min on the ArcTrainer with about a 100 calorie difference. But, I will admit, I was not using the display, and just going off finding that 35 min of activity on the chart.
I will try it again using the "trip" on the display. If I still have a discrepency, I will try the leg option. I have yet to try plugging in data as "edit off body." That's another option.
I don't need exact numbers, but I like knowing I'm in a deficit.
Even with a 10% inaccuracy, say in both the GWF and my calorie counting, I can still have a noticeable deficit.
I don't need exact numbers, but I like knowing I'm in a deficit.
x2. I'm one of those people who is losing less weight than the GWF would indicate. However I still consider this to be my most valuable fitness tool. I've always gained weight on what should be maintenance, not lost weight or maintained on what should be a deficit etc. This has by far been the closest predictor for me and the trends have helped me to take off a few pounds.
Also to put this into perspective the blood sugar monitor that I use 4 to 8 times daily--the FDA allows a 20% variance. Just because the technology is not precise doesn't mean you can't use the data and get benefits. I'm 20+ years into living with diabetes now and am complication free. Also at least regarding meters I've found that even if there can be a large variance in terms of exact accuracy that doesn't necessarily correlate to lack of consistency. Over the years I've collected a lot of different meters and many of them typically are consistent with themselves meaning the one that runs higher is always higher etc.
Obviously the GWF isn't a meter but still I'm finding that a lot of the same principles apply regarding how you use the numbers.
One of the biggest benefits I've found is that it better quantitates the activity you do outside of the gym which is where I find the biggest variance in my day to day burn. Sure a pedometer will do the same thing as far as quantifying general activity and is a lot cheaper. I didn't lose weight using a pedometer I am with GWF. Also I can wear the GWF under a lot more circumstances than I can or would a pedometer. The GWF is not just counting steps and movement it's looking at multiple variables and coming up with the number. I can do the same workout or errands and one day be feeling good and more energetic and will burn a little more calories than the day I'm doing the same overall activity but am dragging a little bit. It may not be precise but the trends are consistant for me and it's better than anything else I've tried.
The 10% +/- is actually from bodymedia's own research. They post it on their web site.
As for accuracy - I find the Gowear very accurate for me. I base this on how many calories the GWF estimates I burn, how many calories I put in and compare that to how many pounds I have lost.
I love it because I do not have a very easy to quantify day. Some days my job pins me down and even with exercise my burn is fairly low. But the very next day my burn might be as much as 800 calories more. Having the GWF means I can keep tabs on what is going on throughout the day and I am not just guessing and getting it wrong. Over time I have been able to see patterns in the data that make it easier to plan for what is to come.
This what it says on the website:
"A recent independent study tested our Armband system in real-life situations. Participants engaged in "free living" activities, including brisk walking, running, bicycling, sedentary activities, home activities, home repair, occupational activities, strength training, and ball games. The study compared the armband to a $40,000 "portable oxygen analyzer", the gold standard for measuring calories. Results showed:
Total Calories for free living activities: mean error <10%.
Total Minutes of exercise: mean error <5%.
Source: British Journal of Sports Medicine. July 2008."
However looking at the abstract of this study, there were only 20 participants and they only particpated for 2h. So they either did an awful lot in those 2h or they all did different things which reduces the numbers involved even further. They were also testing 4 different monitors so it is possible that only 5 were actually involved in testing the Gowear fit. Furthermore in this study they were actually interested in the accuracy of the monitors in periods of moderate to intense activity so it's misleading to imply that the accuracy extended to "home activities", "sedentry activities" etc. I am a bit disappointed that this is the only real data out there on the validity of the monitor.
It seems likely to me that, rather like a drug, it will work better for some than others, but it is good to know that a number of people are feeling they are getting useful data from it. I am thinking I will watch and see for a bit longer before deciding to buy one.
It is more elaborate than "just" a formula. It has a 3axis accelerometer, it measures your heartrate and body temp, and other things. So… it's taking in a lot of variables to make its formula it uses… based on those factors (way more than just your height, weight, age, and sex), and spits out something that's been pretty close to accurate for most of the people on the board who have it.
Just a minor correction--the GWF can't measure HR. All the other listed measures are correct; what's missing is that it senses how much you're sweating and uses that as a variable to determine how much you're burning.
I've had mine for around a month now, and like many others, I think it's the best purchase I've made for my fitness goals. My case is a little different from the others in that what I (initially, at least) found it most valuable for was to see that I don't have a "broken" metabolism. I'd been undereating for some time, and while previously I had upped my calories, I hadn't gone far enough. GWF helped me get to my true maintenance, which seems to be around 2500 (about how much I ate before I started to gain; I was deliberately trying to eat above maintenance to make sure my metabolism was stoked for fat loss).
In terms of fat loss, I've only been using it for that goal for five days now, so I think it's too early to say with reliablilty that it has my burn spot on.
Like Aoife said, it's not strictly necessary, but several people find it useful. I'm one of them and do not regret my purchase.
__________________
They call me Amanda, that being my real name, and "They" being people who know me in person as I don't go around introducing myself in real life as "scribess." 'Cause that would just be strange.
I thought I'd add one thing to this thread just in case anyone else was in this situation - I've had a GWF for several months and I'm a nursing mother. Before I bought it I called customer service to see if they knew anything about the calories burned nursing, whether they were tracked or not. I've heard numbers being thrown around between 200-500 calories extra per day for a nursing mom. The rep I spoke with said they hadn't done any specific studies so he wasn't sure but he said he thought it would most likely be able to track them.
I don't think it does, though. I'd been getting consistent weight loss off a higher calorie number (2500+ calories) and I would plateau if I lowered the level. That's when I bought the GWF since it seemed like that was too many calories, so I wanted an accurate number. To my surprise the GWF said I burned on average about 2300 cals per day, which seemed really odd... based on my calorie intake and weight loss levels I would have assumed quite a bit more. The only thing I could think of is that the calories burned through lactation are not able to be tracked by the GWF.
I actually decided today that I'm ready to "mostly" wean so my theories will have to stay theories. I'm about to start NROLFW and I'm going to eat at maintenance as per what the GWF says, even though I am looking for fat loss, and we'll see what happens. So my occasional nursings will not be counted in that maintenance level, so I'm thinking I'll continue a low weight loss. Worst case scenario I build up some fabulous muscles and then go on a separate fat-loss program after NROLFW and reveal those beautiful muscles
Interesting point, bdasko. I've never been pregnant let alone given birth, so I know very little about the process of lactation. But I can see how the GWF wouldn't be able to track that. I wouldn't think the body has increased movement as a result of lactation, which of course is one of the main things the GWF uses to calculate caloric burn. I'm just taking a guess here, but it seems like the only "GWF detectable" parameter that lactation might affect is body temp, and I have no idea if producing milk increases body temp in the first place.
I rather doubt Leigh's GWF accuracy study included lactating mothers, but I'm still really looking forward to seeing it.
__________________
They call me Amanda, that being my real name, and "They" being people who know me in person as I don't go around introducing myself in real life as "scribess." 'Cause that would just be strange.
lol you are probably right... and I'm betting no one has made a study. Would be kind of a difficult study to do anyway since you can't exactly switch back & forth I mostly just wanted this on record because when I was looking at buying one and searched high and low to find anyone talking about it but couldn't find anything.
Interesting article Kimikaw! What was odd to me is that it underestimated. I just figured the inaccuracy was always an overestimate for some reason! Either way, it seems to be working for and helping the majority of us here! It is definitely a great motivator! I move way more with it!
But thanks for the link - that was interesting.
I agree, it's the "underestimating" that gets me. Heck, if it underestimates a 100 cals a day, and I overestimate....it all evens out.
I do question some of the variables though.
It was so hot here yesterday, and I felt like I never cooled down after my hard cardio workout in the morning. The house temp was 82 and the AC couldn't get lower. I spent some time sewing in a very very hot part of the house. I did a walk in the evening also.
I had over 3300 cals burned for the day, and I think the variable of body temperature (outside temp?) must have had something to do with it.
Been a long time since I had biology, but I think it's both. Being warm-blooded mammals, our bodies work to keep us at a steady temperature rather than rely on the outside temperature to heat us up or cool us off.
__________________
They call me Amanda, that being my real name, and "They" being people who know me in person as I don't go around introducing myself in real life as "scribess." 'Cause that would just be strange.
Been a long time since I had biology, but I think it's both. Being warm-blooded mammals, our bodies work to keep us at a steady temperature rather than rely on the outside temperature to heat us up or cool us off.
I haven't seen this addressed, but then, there are about a zillion pages to the original GWF thread. I may have missed some.
My question is: does the GWF have to be worn on the left arm, like the instructions say? Why would it matter? For that matter, would it work if I wore it on my leg instead?
Just thinking about options, because sometimes my arm gets irritated under it, but I want to wear it as much as possible. Also, if I were going somewhere I wouldn't want it to be seen on my arm. . .?
Yes, GWF says it's supposed to be only worn on the left arm; however, some have tried it on their calf. I just don't wear it when I am going out somewhere that it would look weird.
I always wear mine on my left arm, unless it just needs a break for a bit then I switch it to the right. Sometimes my arm will feel a bit sweaty or itchy, and just need to breathe.
I've tried it on the calf when biking, and it doesn't get much higher than on the arm. I'm going to have to add biking in separately, as I'm fairly sure I burned more than 250 in an hour of biking. It's hard to tell though as you get those built in rest periods going down hill. I might try the HRM and checking cals that way.
I've never "edited off body" yet, so I'm not sure how that works.
I always wear mine on my left arm, unless it just needs a break for a bit then I switch it to the right. Sometimes my arm will feel a bit sweaty or itchy, and just need to breathe.
I've tried it on the calf when biking, and it doesn't get much higher than on the arm. I'm going to have to add biking in separately, as I'm fairly sure I burned more than 250 in an hour of biking. It's hard to tell though as you get those built in rest periods going down hill. I might try the HRM and checking cals that way.
I've never "edited off body" yet, so I'm not sure how that works.
Ok, so this is pretty much the answer I was wondering about. You say you have worn it on your right arm and on your calf; it seems to work properly on both? I just wonder why they say to always use the left tricep. I was thinking it might not collect data properly anywhere else, but why wouldn't it? It just measures body paramaters that I think are pretty much similar everywhere. Maybe it's just for consistency.
I have used the "edit off body" function. It's very general. You just pick from a list of activities what you were doing while it was off, and it calculates the calorie burn for you. No idea how accurate that is, especially since they only have a limited list. But, if you do pretty much the same thing every time it's off, there is a choice to use "I did the same as. . ." and then you can pick another day and it will use the same calorie burn rate as that. That might be useful if you have a routine.
Accuracy of Gowear Fit
Which means I haven't studied up too much on it, just remembering based on previous posts and things I've read and whatnot… so I can't think of any link in particular other than the thread you've already seen and a general "Leigh's site" direction when it comes to documentation. (LeighPeele.com or flzine.com would be those sites) 
. For the money and the claims made, I would expect something more elaborate than just a formula. Also, if there is inaccuracy I am not sure that you can assume variance is stable - without knowing the causes of the inaccuracy, variance could be very different from day to day depending on the individual and the activities they are doing. For example if it does underestimate cycling then cycling 2h one day will show up as a much bigger error than on a day when you did nothing. 
I mostly just wanted this on record because when I was looking at buying one and searched high and low to find anyone talking about it but couldn't find anything.
Linear Mode
