Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

Options
1…1011131516…27

Replies

  • tayloni1
    tayloni1 Posts: 6
    Options
    Bump
  • mrstweedle1
    mrstweedle1 Posts: 43 Member
    Options
    bump for when i get my HRM
  • gablondie
    gablondie Posts: 10
    Options
    bump
  • stephreed11
    stephreed11 Posts: 158 Member
    Options
    Just had a quick question-
    I just experimented with this & changed my age from 24 to my new "calculated age", 32. My HRM said I burned 9 more cals with this particular exercise than I did when my age was set to 24. Does this sound right? Just want to make sure I have everything set up correctly & burning 9 more cals is really the only difference with this new method...
    Thanks!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Just had a quick question-
    I just experimented with this & changed my age from 24 to my new "calculated age", 32. My HRM said I burned 9 more cals with this particular exercise than I did when my age was set to 24. Does this sound right? Just want to make sure I have everything set up correctly & burning 9 more cals is really the only difference with this new method...
    Thanks!

    Was your AHR and MHR and time exactly the same? Did you set the max HR stat back to what it was or better to do the test in the post?
    MHR setting has a bigger bearing on calories burned the BMR.
    So even if you hit the exact same AHR and MHR and time, if the HRM calculated max HR, it would now be lower, and with lower max HR, it will appear you pushed harder than last time.

    You should have burned less actually, having biologically slower metabolism for someone your age/height/weight.
  • Larry0445
    Larry0445 Posts: 232
    Options
    Bump
  • goforthd5
    goforthd5 Posts: 167
    Options
    bump
  • chubby_checkers
    chubby_checkers Posts: 2,354 Member
    Options
    I'll look into this when my brain is functioning properly. Thanks.
  • projectconsistency
    projectconsistency Posts: 44
    Options
    Thanks for posting the information. It's great to see you're answering everyone's questions. I put in my info and was surprised to see 27.6% body fat (Covert Bailey). I weigh over 200 pounds and feel pretty fat, so it's hard to believe my body fat much lower than I thought it would be. I'm taller, and I run marathons and work out a lot, but I still feel pretty fat. Is it safe to use the information I got from the calculators to help my Polar better calculate calories burned? I got the Polar to train by heart rate, but after reading your post I want to use it to get a more accurate measure of my calorie burn! Thanks.
  • blondiekat230
    blondiekat230 Posts: 32
    Options
    bump
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Thanks for posting the information. It's great to see you're answering everyone's questions. I put in my info and was surprised to see 27.6% body fat (Covert Bailey). I weigh over 200 pounds and feel pretty fat, so it's hard to believe my body fat much lower than I thought it would be. I'm taller, and I run marathons and work out a lot, but I still feel pretty fat. Is it safe to use the information I got from the calculators to help my Polar better calculate calories burned? I got the Polar to train by heart rate, but after reading your post I want to use it to get a more accurate measure of my calorie burn! Thanks.

    Indeed could. A bigger factor for you though will be the max HR setting. Since you've been exercising, yours is as high as it'll be, and you could get that stat right too.
  • pinkita
    pinkita Posts: 779 Member
    Options
    bump, and thanks for posting
  • SassyJuliana
    SassyJuliana Posts: 96 Member
    Options
    bump
  • projectconsistency
    projectconsistency Posts: 44
    Options
    Thanks for posting the information. It's great to see you're answering everyone's questions. I put in my info and was surprised to see 27.6% body fat (Covert Bailey). I weigh over 200 pounds and feel pretty fat, so it's hard to believe my body fat much lower than I thought it would be. I'm taller, and I run marathons and work out a lot, but I still feel pretty fat. Is it safe to use the information I got from the calculators to help my Polar better calculate calories burned? I got the Polar to train by heart rate, but after reading your post I want to use it to get a more accurate measure of my calorie burn! Thanks.

    Indeed could. A bigger factor for you though will be the max HR setting. Since you've been exercising, yours is as high as it'll be, and you could get that stat right too.

    Thank you for the quick response! I can't wait to adjust my Polar in the morning.
  • stephreed11
    stephreed11 Posts: 158 Member
    Options
    Just had a quick question-
    I just experimented with this & changed my age from 24 to my new "calculated age", 32. My HRM said I burned 9 more cals with this particular exercise than I did when my age was set to 24. Does this sound right? Just want to make sure I have everything set up correctly & burning 9 more cals is really the only difference with this new method...
    Thanks!

    Was your AHR and MHR and time exactly the same? Did you set the max HR stat back to what it was or better to do the test in the post?
    MHR setting has a bigger bearing on calories burned the BMR.
    So even if you hit the exact same AHR and MHR and time, if the HRM calculated max HR, it would now be lower, and with lower max HR, it will appear you pushed harder than last time.

    You should have burned less actually, having biologically slower metabolism for someone your age/height/weight.

    I actually didn't do anything with the HR...just changed my age. So I need to do both tests to find a different HR? I'm sorry if I seem slow, I just get confused with all of this! lol. Thanks for helping me!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Just had a quick question-
    I just experimented with this & changed my age from 24 to my new "calculated age", 32. My HRM said I burned 9 more cals with this particular exercise than I did when my age was set to 24. Does this sound right? Just want to make sure I have everything set up correctly & burning 9 more cals is really the only difference with this new method...
    Thanks!

    Was your AHR and MHR and time exactly the same? Did you set the max HR stat back to what it was or better to do the test in the post?
    MHR setting has a bigger bearing on calories burned the BMR.
    So even if you hit the exact same AHR and MHR and time, if the HRM calculated max HR, it would now be lower, and with lower max HR, it will appear you pushed harder than last time.

    You should have burned less actually, having biologically slower metabolism for someone your age/height/weight.

    I actually didn't do anything with the HR...just changed my age. So I need to do both tests to find a different HR? I'm sorry if I seem slow, I just get confused with all of this! lol. Thanks for helping me!

    Ya, the Polar is pretty good about changing the stat under personal settings for max HR, same page as the age, as soon as you enter a new age.

    Yours is the big extreme I've seen, going up to 90 yrs old means the max HR will be calculated at 130. So if you were to avg 150, it would appear to the Polar you were really pushing it to the max.
    And you would get a huge calorie burn for that, despite having metabolism entered for someone much older.

    And even when everything is setup correctly, it's based on your avg HR and highest HR reached during the workout, compared to what your max HR is.
  • hanniejong
    hanniejong Posts: 556 Member
    Options
    BUMP
  • Tenar13
    Tenar13 Posts: 49 Member
    Options
    bump
  • byHISstrength
    byHISstrength Posts: 984 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • mmklinemm
    mmklinemm Posts: 58 Member
    Options
    Thanks! Saving this for when I finally get my FT4.

Categories