Needed: Scientific Fitness Guru to answer HRM ?

Swimgoddess

Ok, awesome... so my Polar FT7 arrived in the mail yesterday and I was pretty stoked until I realized that the only info inputs were my:

Weight: 156
Height: 5' 8" (rounded that 1/2" down)
DoB: (30 years old)
Sex: Female

No inputs for the stuff that makes it super accurate like (http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472 though the blogger states that any Polar model FT6 and up has it???)

Max HR: (though I'm sure they do the 220-age formula) 190bpm?
Resting HR: 53 (took laying in bed this a.m. when I woke)
VO2 Max: 71-95% (according to a formula a trainer gave me. Basically Max HR - Resting HR = Answer x .6 = Answer x .8 = Answer + Resting HR = 60-80% of that Answer)

When I finished my personal training session today I showed my trainer the summary that said I burned about 571 calories in the hour long session and he of course asked if body comp was part of the setup (insert too-late sales pitch for bodybugg), and of course the answer was no. So he said that because of my body fat being where it is (19.8%), that I probably burned closer to 700-something (he says off the top of his head). I asked if there was a formula or percentage I could use to account for lower BF% given the calorie expenditure shown on the HRM, which of course either exceeded his scope of knowledge, patience to look it up somewhere, or probably just his available time given it was the end of the session.

So does anyone here know how I can get a better estimate of calories burned using my feedback from my HRM and accounting for my body composition?

(and heck, while we're at it where the heck I can input the additional info to my Polar FT7 assuming the blogger was right about it being able to do so?)

JDMPWR

He is correct in that respect but you have to think this is not an exact science.

The reason why he says this is what establishes calories burned is your metabolism and what estalished your metabolic rate is your body composition or more importantly your muscle mass versus fat mass.

Bodybugg takes that into account to be frank I wouldn't worry to much about it as i have had both and tested them at the same time. My BB varied like 14 cals from my HRM.

Swimgoddess

So his extra 100-200 calories burned in an hour estimate was based on sound theory, though the actual numbers were grossly exaggerated?

Out of curiousity, what was your body comp when you ran the test if you remember? (Lol, nevermind, definitely lower than mine! Won't matter anyway.)