Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

Options
1…89111314…27

Replies

  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    bump. I have to figure this out. I have a Polar FT7 and always thought the calorie calcs were off.

    MHR setting will effect it more, pretty easy test there too.
  • MrsSamB
    MrsSamB Posts: 144 Member
    Options
    My numbers:
    Results:

    42.37% (U.S. Navy Circumference Method #1 - men and women)

    33.57% (U.S. Navy Circumference Method #2 - women only)

    25.55% (book by Covert Bailey "Fit or Fat")

    33.8% Average

    with my original info (weight, height, etc) my BMR was 1647.
    With my "new" info using the Covert Bailey, my BMR was 1759 and my age was 5.

    Myfitnesspal has me eating 1200 calories per day. I almost always eat my exercise calories. What should I do. I have not lost weight in about 3 weeks.
  • ElPumaMex
    ElPumaMex Posts: 367 Member
    Options
    bump to check later
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    with my original info (weight, height, etc) my BMR was 1647.
    With my "new" info using the Covert Bailey, my BMR was 1759 and my age was 5.

    Myfitnesspal has me eating 1200 calories per day. I almost always eat my exercise calories. What should I do. I have not lost weight in about 3 weeks.

    Well, if you net at 1200 because of the activity level and weight loss goal you selected, than that is actually your BMR.
    It could potentially be 1759 because of excellent lean body mass, but it can't be because it hasn't gotten the energy it needs, so it has slowed down.

    So actually, you probably have the metabolism of someone your height/weight that is over 90 yrs old, because that is a huge difference. So you would probably have to see what weight that 90 yr old woman would have to be to match 1200 BMR.

    But may I suggest not only doing that so you have more accurate calorie burn estimate, do the MHR test too, because changing to 90 will mess up the calculated MHR of 220-age, and yours is probably better than that.

    And then for getting out of your stall, read this.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method
  • MrsSamB
    MrsSamB Posts: 144 Member
    Options
    When I put the age in as 90, the BMR comes up as 1662. And, you're correct, I set up mfp so that I would "lose" 2 lbs/per week that's why I was at 1200 calories. When I change the settings to lose 1 lb./week, exercising 4x/week my calorie allowance goes up to 1660.

    But for my Polar, should I change the age to 90 or should I change the age to 5?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    When I put the age in as 90, the BMR comes up as 1662. And, you're correct, I set up mfp so that I would "lose" 2 lbs/per week that's why I was at 1200 calories. When I change the settings to lose 1 lb./week, exercising 4x/week my calorie allowance goes up to 1660.

    But for my Polar, should I change the age to 90 or should I change the age to 5?

    If you are going to eat more and your exercise calories, I'd set to 5.

    Suggest only increasing by 200 per day for a week, and then another 200, ect.

    You will need to do the max HR step test to get the MHR set correctly, as soon as you change the age, it changes the MHR to 220-age, which will really be wrong now!
    And that effects calorie estimate more.
  • Michellerawrrr
    Michellerawrrr Posts: 312 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • Aureilie
    Aureilie Posts: 213 Member
    Options
    Bump!
  • Anayalata
    Anayalata Posts: 391 Member
    Options
    So, I entered my calculations.

    It gave me 9.75% body fat. I'm 22 years old, Male, 69 inches tall, 140 lbs.

    According to your data, I have the BMR of a 31~32 year old.

    This is rather detrimental to my already low self-esteem lol
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    So, I entered my calculations.

    It gave me 9.75% body fat. I'm 22 years old, Male, 69 inches tall, 140 lbs.

    According to your data, I have the BMR of a 31~32 year old.

    This is rather detrimental to my already low self-esteem lol

    Ahh, trying to gain weight then! Muscle weight that is. Excellent loss already, wow.

    Well, that means your LBM is slightly below avg for your age/height/weight - so keep lifting! Doing the right thing.
  • Allic1971
    Allic1971 Posts: 145 Member
    Options
    Ok what do I do wrong??? (and yes I am blonde LOL)

    BMR before is 1531, Fat percentage is 21.5 and bmr after is 1743, I have to go into negative numbers to get 1743.....



    Results:

    38.12% (U.S. Navy Circumference Method #1 - men and women)

    30.03% (U.S. Navy Circumference Method #2 - women only)

    21.5% (book by Covert Bailey "Fit or Fat")

    29.9% Average
  • Carim007
    Carim007 Posts: 45 Member
    Options
    Thanks Heybales ... !!!

    as always with your comments ... It is extremely clear AND indispensable !!!

    Thanks again
  • marie111
    marie111 Posts: 91 Member
    Options
    bump
  • jms3533
    jms3533 Posts: 316 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • tracymarie2012
    tracymarie2012 Posts: 161 Member
    Options
    Good info, thanks! Bump
  • shorty313
    shorty313 Posts: 432 Member
    Options
    bump for later
  • Nigerianebony
    Nigerianebony Posts: 182 Member
    Options
    Hey all, I own a polar. If you want accuracy with your calorie burn, I suggest you get a metabolic test. Use your results and put it in your watch. This is probably the best way to get an accurate reading. The test actually measured my BMR, my VO2 max, HR max, and my zones. It turns out that i was truly overestimating my calorie burn before the test. Once i put my metrics into my polar, I realized that I had to push myself harder. Sooooo if you really want an accurate read, get the metabolic test. It is worth it.


    NOTE, i get tested every 6month. If you are consistent with training, then your measurements will change significantly. Mine did. And it sucked, cuz i have to push myself harder every time.
  • dsengel01
    dsengel01 Posts: 93 Member
    Options
    bump - will be getting my Polar this weekend
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Hey all, I own a polar. If you want accuracy with your calorie burn, I suggest you get a metabolic test. Use your results and put it in your watch. This is probably the best way to get an accurate reading. The test actually measured my BMR, my VO2 max, HR max, and my zones. It turns out that i was truly overestimating my calorie burn before the test. Once i put my metrics into my polar, I realized that I had to push myself harder. Sooooo if you really want an accurate read, get the metabolic test. It is worth it.


    NOTE, i get tested every 6month. If you are consistent with training, then your measurements will change significantly. Mine did. And it sucked, cuz i have to push myself harder every time.

    Curious if they gave you a lactate threshold level in there, and if you set up any training zones according to that?
    My next post will be for that, not really HRM setup, but smart training zones to use.

    And how much was that nice full test in US dollars, and what kind of facility?

    Oh, spot on for all the stats being needed. BMR is the easiest math-wise to do, MHR is most important, and VO2max is useful, though with the other two corrected, it seems to estimate it better.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Ok what do I do wrong??? (and yes I am blonde LOL)

    BMR before is 1531, Fat percentage is 21.5 and bmr after is 1743, I have to go into negative numbers to get 1743.....

    Results:

    38.12% (U.S. Navy Circumference Method #1 - men and women)

    30.03% (U.S. Navy Circumference Method #2 - women only)

    21.5% (book by Covert Bailey "Fit or Fat")

    29.9% Average

    No, you did it correctly. Based on Lean Body Mass, your estimated BMR could be 1743.
    Problem is, any potential BMR can't be that if there isn't that many calories left over after exercise took it's share from what you ate. So, if you've been NET'ing around 1400 because you told MFP 1lb weekly, then that is really your BMR.

    So, if you really NET above 1743, then that really could be how high you are running. And correct if you net that high, you have the metabolism of avg gal of your height/weight much younger than you - mathematically, of course at some point talking babies and that isn't the case.

    But if NET'ing below, then you have the metabolism of avg gal your height/weight older than you.

    So 2 points, some body types don't do well with measured stats to estimate BF%, which of course means LBM % and lbs is off, and throws off the BMR calc based on LBM. Also if measuring after you have done some strength training, or retaining water, would throw it off.
    So leaving the combo Navy out of the equation, you might try the women only and Covert Bailey which is also gender specific. So use that avg 28.5% for now.

    But if NET'ing below your potential estimated BMR, then that doesn't even matter, your metabolism is slower, so less burn than HRM is estimating, not more.
    You'll be adjusting the age up until BMR hits what you NET eat on avg.

    Oh, after you change the age, the HRM adjusts the max HR to 220-age. And it may have been wrong before, it is really wrong now. So do that step test too for better MHR stat - that has biggest bearing on calorie burn estimate.

Categories