Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR
Replies
-
I don't recall looking at my HRM midworkout and seeing it, too busy trying to keep up with the moves :laugh: I'll disregard it and see if it happens again.woah! Hit a new Maximum heart rate this weekend. Was 193 but I got a 219! I was exercising in my living room and it was a hotter day than we typically get here in the UK. It was only a 23 minute session to one of The Firm's DVDs although it was hard work with some plyometrics which always make my heart pound in my head :laugh:
I'm 43, so I'm quite surprised it could get that high!
Now, do I reset my max HR to 224 on my Polar, or do you think 219 could be a fluke?
If that's what the HRM read as peak in the post-workout stats, I'd say fluke.
If you saw it go up to that and hit that and slowly come back down, I'd trust it.
Ah, the Firm, I remember my mom getting those 25 yrs ago, pretty intense at that time and I'd rather have done jogging or weights for something easier.
Yep, the Firm DVDs are still tough, some things never change! I had no idea they've been around that long. I like variety, in for the long haul so I can't be getting bored of working out this early in the game!0 -
Bumping to put in my topics and it was 24 pages in and I don't want to have to go through *that* again!0
-
Bump0
-
To the last few bumps.
Here is a spreadsheet to do it easier.
HRM tab, upper section.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Amt7QBR9-c6MdGVTbGswLUUzUHNVVUlNSW9wZWloeUE0 -
bump0
-
Ditto the bump.0
-
QUESTIONS!!::
Ok I have questions on your calorie burns and HRM numbers......I've often thought my HRM cal burns were off and were over estimated. Especially when I am just walking or jogging. My HRM would say a 3mph walk was like 550 cal burn in 60 minutes and MFP would say like 220 cals for a 3mph walk for 60 minutes. Way different numbers right!?.... Your info caught my attention so I plugged in all my info and it said my covert BF% was 22.2% and my new age was 13!!! Well that's a compliment I would LOVE to keep! BUT....first off....I have biggest loser scale and it says my BF% is actually 28.6%..... and so since I want to be accurate I put in that number too just to see what I would get and my BMR dropped....from 1593(as a 13yr old) to 1492(The day Columbus sailed the ocean blue) lol. So.....to get my age to match 1492 I had to change it to 34.5 years old.....
So should I set my HRM so think I am 13 or 34?
Plus: I have a fast resting heart rate at 90 bpm........if I input that I am older/younger won't that throw my results off more?.... I already felt that my calorie burns were over estimated due to my fast resting heart rate.
Plus: I have a slow thyroid....
*Plus:... I have been netting my calories at 1350 for the last few months..... I recently was going to change my cal goal to 1200 because I wasn't losing much weight.... According to what you said I'd have to put in my HRM that I am 95.....and well my HRM won't let me go that far back.....SAD TRUTH hahaha and because of my already fast resting heart rate wont that make it seem like I (as great-grandma) have some sky rocketing calorie burns!?....
Thank you for helping! This has been so interesting and I had made other posts before on the accuracy or lack of accuracy on my Polar FT4 and never could get an answer other than... "are you wearing it right? do you wash it daily? do you have it set to you info?" So thank you for posting this info sorry I have so many questions....0 -
Bump!0
-
bump0
-
bump0
-
Bumpity boo0
-
thanks0
-
SO glad I stumbled upon this topic... amazingly helpful! Thank you!0
-
Your info caught my attention so I plugged in all my info and it said my covert BF% was 22.2% and my new age was 13!!! Well that's a compliment I would LOVE to keep! BUT....first off....I have biggest loser scale and it says my BF% is actually 28.6%..... and so since I want to be accurate I put in that number too just to see what I would get and my BMR dropped....from 1593(as a 13yr old) to 1492(The day Columbus sailed the ocean blue) lol. So.....to get my age to match 1492 I had to change it to 34.5 years old.....
So should I set my HRM so think I am 13 or 34?
Personally, I would use the BF% read from your Biggest Loser scale and use the age of 35 (rounding up is better than down).0 -
This makes me 109 years old :laugh:0
-
bump0
-
QUESTIONS!!::
Ok I have questions on your calorie burns and HRM numbers......I've often thought my HRM cal burns were off and were over estimated. Especially when I am just walking or jogging. My HRM would say a 3mph walk was like 550 cal burn in 60 minutes and MFP would say like 220 cals for a 3mph walk for 60 minutes. Way different numbers right!?.... Your info caught my attention so I plugged in all my info and it said my covert BF% was 22.2% and my new age was 13!!! Well that's a compliment I would LOVE to keep! BUT....first off....I have biggest loser scale and it says my BF% is actually 28.6%..... and so since I want to be accurate I put in that number too just to see what I would get and my BMR dropped....from 1593(as a 13yr old) to 1492(The day Columbus sailed the ocean blue) lol. So.....to get my age to match 1492 I had to change it to 34.5 years old.....
So should I set my HRM so think I am 13 or 34?
Plus: I have a fast resting heart rate at 90 bpm........if I input that I am older/younger won't that throw my results off more?.... I already felt that my calorie burns were over estimated due to my fast resting heart rate.
Plus: I have a slow thyroid....
*Plus:... I have been netting my calories at 1350 for the last few months..... I recently was going to change my cal goal to 1200 because I wasn't losing much weight.... According to what you said I'd have to put in my HRM that I am 95.....and well my HRM won't let me go that far back.....SAD TRUTH hahaha and because of my already fast resting heart rate wont that make it seem like I (as great-grandma) have some sky rocketing calorie burns!?....
Thank you for helping! This has been so interesting and I had made other posts before on the accuracy or lack of accuracy on my Polar FT4 and never could get an answer other than... "are you wearing it right? do you wash it daily? do you have it set to you info?" So thank you for posting this info sorry I have so many questions....
First, walking is great for using calorie calculator, because treadmill walking (running too actually) is most tested activity.
So use this site and see what it says. Better than MFP, which is based on same database many sites use.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
Regarding BMR estimate based on BF%, I'd say avg those two. Scale is going to be around 6% accuracy if you are doing everything best it should be done (hydration, time, ect) and that is rare, and calc is 5% - so they do overlap actually.
I'd use that age, which is somewhere in-between - which is great, means you have better LBM than expected for your age/height/weight.
The HRM doesn't use resting HR in calc's, and besides, it's the maxHR that matters more than RHR. And indeed in your case, your MHR may be more than HRM is calculating (220-age).
So say for instance, you walked that 3mph, and HR was as 160 avg, and your MHR really was 175, that means that is a great effort for you. But if your MHR was really 200, not nearly as much.
If that 160 is hit because of being out of shape, as opposed to really just pushing it hard, difference too.
So as the first post mentions, MHR is bigger factor and should be tested too.
Might see what changes if you use height in this spreadsheet. HRM tab.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Amt7QBR9-c6MdGVTbGswLUUzUHNVVUlNSW9wZWloeUE
Slow thyroid could effect things, but that does sound like a high cal burn estimate.
What does the other site calc say for your stats doing 3mph? And what was your AHR for that 3mph effort? And what incline? 20% sounds about right actually.0 -
This makes me 109 years old :laugh:
Ahh, that change quickly as you keep improving then. You'll find yourself getting younger all the time!0 -
bump for later reading0
-
Thank you for the help. I'll change my HRM to 35 years and see what my calorie burns look like.
0 -
Yes I think my HRM is calculating my MHR too low because of my RHR already being fast. That's why I think ,y calorie burns are off. I'm worried if I change my age to being younger so my heart rate doesn't seem so high it'll make my calorie burns higher too and not accurate....and if I make my HRM think I am older that my heart rate is sky rocketing and giving me incorrect calorie burns. Thanks for helping. LOL I'm just odd I guessQUESTIONS!!::
Ok I have questions on your calorie burns and HRM numbers......I've often thought my HRM cal burns were off and were over estimated. Especially when I am just walking or jogging. My HRM would say a 3mph walk was like 550 cal burn in 60 minutes and MFP would say like 220 cals for a 3mph walk for 60 minutes. Way different numbers right!?.... Your info caught my attention so I plugged in all my info and it said my covert BF% was 22.2% and my new age was 13!!! Well that's a compliment I would LOVE to keep! BUT....first off....I have biggest loser scale and it says my BF% is actually 28.6%..... and so since I want to be accurate I put in that number too just to see what I would get and my BMR dropped....from 1593(as a 13yr old) to 1492(The day Columbus sailed the ocean blue) lol. So.....to get my age to match 1492 I had to change it to 34.5 years old.....
So should I set my HRM so think I am 13 or 34?
Plus: I have a fast resting heart rate at 90 bpm........if I input that I am older/younger won't that throw my results off more?.... I already felt that my calorie burns were over estimated due to my fast resting heart rate.
Plus: I have a slow thyroid....
*Plus:... I have been netting my calories at 1350 for the last few months..... I recently was going to change my cal goal to 1200 because I wasn't losing much weight.... According to what you said I'd have to put in my HRM that I am 95.....and well my HRM won't let me go that far back.....SAD TRUTH hahaha and because of my already fast resting heart rate wont that make it seem like I (as great-grandma) have some sky rocketing calorie burns!?....
Thank you for helping! This has been so interesting and I had made other posts before on the accuracy or lack of accuracy on my Polar FT4 and never could get an answer other than... "are you wearing it right? do you wash it daily? do you have it set to you info?" So thank you for posting this info sorry I have so many questions....
First, walking is great for using calorie calculator, because treadmill walking (running too actually) is most tested activity.
So use this site and see what it says. Better than MFP, which is based on same database many sites use.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
Regarding BMR estimate based on BF%, I'd say avg those two. Scale is going to be around 6% accuracy if you are doing everything best it should be done (hydration, time, ect) and that is rare, and calc is 5% - so they do overlap actually.
I'd use that age, which is somewhere in-between - which is great, means you have better LBM than expected for your age/height/weight.
The HRM doesn't use resting HR in calc's, and besides, it's the maxHR that matters more than RHR. And indeed in your case, your MHR may be more than HRM is calculating (220-age).
So say for instance, you walked that 3mph, and HR was as 160 avg, and your MHR really was 175, that means that is a great effort for you. But if your MHR was really 200, not nearly as much.
If that 160 is hit because of being out of shape, as opposed to really just pushing it hard, difference too.
So as the first post mentions, MHR is bigger factor and should be tested too.
Might see what changes if you use height in this spreadsheet. HRM tab.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Amt7QBR9-c6MdGVTbGswLUUzUHNVVUlNSW9wZWloeUE
Slow thyroid could effect things, but that does sound like a high cal burn estimate.
What does the other site calc say for your stats doing 3mph? And what was your AHR for that 3mph effort? And what incline? 20% sounds about right actually.0 -
Yes I think my HRM is calculating my MHR too low because of my RHR already being fast. That's why I think ,y calorie burns are off. I'm worried if I change my age to being younger so my heart rate doesn't seem so high it'll make my calorie burns higher too and not accurate....and if I make my HRM think I am older that my heart rate is sky rocketing and giving me incorrect calorie burns. Thanks for helping. LOL I'm just odd I guess
So you can test out what happens to age and calorie burn without touching your HRM.
Here is the formula from a Polar study, and likely the foundation of what they use in their HRM.
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm0 -
Can someone check I got this right ?
age 37
height - 70 inches (think thats right for 5'10)
weight - 126 Ibs
bodyfat % - 19%
I got to reduce my age to 33... not much of a drop really for someone with 19% bodyfat.0 -
Can someone check I got this right ?
age 37
height - 70 inches (think thats right for 5'10)
weight - 126 Ibs
bodyfat % - 19%
I got to reduce my age to 33... not much of a drop really for someone with 19% bodyfat.
BMR by age/weight/height is 1358.
BMR by weight/bodyfat% is 1370.
So you have about avg ratio of bodyfat/LBM as expected (tad better) - not much of a change for you to be worth messing with, unless you just feel like it. You could also keep the age, and increase your height to 73 inches in HRM for the same correction.
But, you are the age where the 220-age estimate for maxHR starts falling apart, because it's been found as you get older, you don't really lose a bpm per year, if at all. I'm still 17 higher than that formula would give.
So you'd benefit much more from second part of OP about estimating your maxHR better, and correcting the HRM stat on that.0 -
Can someone check I got this right ?
age 37
height - 70 inches (think thats right for 5'10)
weight - 126 Ibs
bodyfat % - 19%
I got to reduce my age to 33... not much of a drop really for someone with 19% bodyfat.
BMR by age/weight/height is 1358.
BMR by weight/bodyfat% is 1370.
So you have about avg ratio of bodyfat/LBM as expected (tad better) - not much of a change for you to be worth messing with, unless you just feel like it. You could also keep the age, and increase your height to 73 inches in HRM for the same correction.
But, you are the age where the 220-age estimate for maxHR starts falling apart, because it's been found as you get older, you don't really lose a bpm per year, if at all. I'm still 17 higher than that formula would give.
So you'd benefit much more from second part of OP about estimating your maxHR better, and correcting the HRM stat on that.
Will look into that.
The trainer at my gym said 19% is good for a female, but looking at some of the drastic changes for peoples' bmr here, I am wondering if I should aim to get it lower. I am guessing that is the only real way to raise the bmr.0 -
Bump0
-
The trainer at my gym said 19% is good for a female, but looking at some of the drastic changes for peoples' bmr here, I am wondering if I should aim to get it lower. I am guessing that is the only real way to raise the bmr.
Uh oh, not going to like this. Because the biggest way to increase your BMR/RMR, outside always being cold, is have more muscle for the metabolism to take care of.
It's actually not by bodyfat%, but rather that and weight gives your Lean Body Mass, and LBM is actually what the calc's are based on.
So to increase your LBM with already excellent bodyfat% - gotta gain weight - muscle specifically.
Lifting rather than cardio.
But if you love the cardio more and already at goal weight, you may not want to carry around much more muscle than needed for your desired cardio activity.
Then again, if just for enjoyment, more muscle not a bad thing to have.0 -
I think I bumped this...but I'm bumping again to read later.0
-
bump...until I've had some caffeine...0
-
So, if I adjust my age older than I really am, does that make my calorie burn go down for the same exercise? Just trying to figure that out before I go tinkering.
I know when I first tried this 2 months ago, I would have had to enter that I was like 84. This time I came up with 56 or 67 depending on which body fat estimate I use. Interesting...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions