Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

heybales

I will check out that sheet when I can get access to it. Thank you.

Are you suggesting then to lower my height instead of age to allow for the slightly lower BMR? as well as the MHR.

Quick questions on the side of the first:

When entering the amount of cals burned during a workout onto MFP should I be deducting the amount of cals from the workout I would have normally burnt by sitting still?

eg: Workout 1 hour burn of 1000 cals. - the 100 cals I would have burnt by sitting still = 900 cals?

Also when measuring waist should you tense abs prior to measurements?

For sure do the maxHR - you got great estimate on that, saw it going up to that level, not some weird blip on stats at end of workout. And in fact, if it didn't feel like you were almost dying and had to stop that level immediately, you might even add 10 on. But 5 good starting point.

For subtracting what is being accounted for already by MFP, you would actually use what MFP is suggesting and tracking you would have burned during that time.
Goals section, Calories Burned from normal daily activity figure. Divide that by 24 for how many calories was planned on you burning during that 1 hr.

No tensing, try to have neutral stance, which means sometimes the belly hangs out more. No need to arch the back and push it out with deep breath of course, but opposite not correct either.

stevo822

So I take it that Polar estimates the gross not nett calorie burn then?

heybales

So I take it that Polar estimates the gross not nett calorie burn then?

No HRM's seem to care that you might be trying to lose weight, and only want to know how many additional calories above what you would have burned otherwise. Because really, BMR is not what you would have burned during that time, RMR at best probably.
Well, unless you are giving up sleep I suppose. Ok, maybe.

stevo822

If i change the height and MHR on the monitor to reflect a more accurate burn we should all be on the right track then?

stevo822

If i change the height and MHR on the monitor to reflect a more accurate burn we should all be on the right track then?

desert_rhino

Bump

Pimpmonkey

bump

stevo822

I have now seen the spreadsheet you have created and it explains everything.

For anyone that is confused look at it for 20 mins and all will become clear!!

Thanks so much for your help. :drinker:


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Amt7QBR9-c6MdGVTbGswLUUzUHNVVUlNSW9wZWloeUE

iluvmyortiz1122

This netting thing...should I be eating more calories based on calories burned? For example, I burn about 800 calories a day. I eat 1200 (roughly). That leaves me with only 400 calories consumed. Is that okay, or should I be eating 2000 calories to net 1200 calories?

ElderMae

Bump for later. Thanks for the research.

heybales

This netting thing...should I be eating more calories based on calories burned? For example, I burn about 800 calories a day. I eat 1200 (roughly). That leaves me with only 400 calories consumed. Is that okay, or should I be eating 2000 calories to net 1200 calories?

Go to MFP - Tools - BMR calc, read what BMR means in a simplified paragraph.
See what your healthy estimated BMR is right now.

That is what your body is willing to burn daily in deep sleep, just taking care of required functions of the body at basic level. Not even talking growing hair/nail/skin or repairing muscle yet. Certainly not waking up yet. That is called Resting MR, and is 150-200 higher just being awake resting. Start moving and it goes up more.

Anyway, that's what your body could be burning daily sleeping. And after you burn off so many calories in exercise, how much are you leaving for it to work with?

jesilee7692

bump for later..

callenlee

bump

iluvmyortiz1122

This netting thing...should I be eating more calories based on calories burned? For example, I burn about 800 calories a day. I eat 1200 (roughly). That leaves me with only 400 calories consumed. Is that okay, or should I be eating 2000 calories to net 1200 calories?

Go to MFP - Tools - BMR calc, read what BMR means in a simplified paragraph.
See what your healthy estimated BMR is right now.

That is what your body is willing to burn daily in deep sleep, just taking care of required functions of the body at basic level. Not even talking growing hair/nail/skin or repairing muscle yet. Certainly not waking up yet. That is called Resting MR, and is 150-200 higher just being awake resting. Start moving and it goes up more.

Anyway, that's what your body could be burning daily sleeping. And after you burn off so many calories in exercise, how much are you leaving for it to work with?

Mine is 1,561 calories/day...

heybales

This netting thing...should I be eating more calories based on calories burned? For example, I burn about 800 calories a day. I eat 1200 (roughly). That leaves me with only 400 calories consumed. Is that okay, or should I be eating 2000 calories to net 1200 calories?

Go to MFP - Tools - BMR calc, read what BMR means in a simplified paragraph.
See what your healthy estimated BMR is right now.

That is what your body is willing to burn daily in deep sleep, just taking care of required functions of the body at basic level. Not even talking growing hair/nail/skin or repairing muscle yet. Certainly not waking up yet. That is called Resting MR, and is 150-200 higher just being awake resting. Start moving and it goes up more.

Anyway, that's what your body could be burning daily sleeping. And after you burn off so many calories in exercise, how much are you leaving for it to work with?

Mine is 1,561 calories/day...

Body could burn 1561 daily (estimated healthy at least).
You feed it 1200.
You take 800 to exercise.
You leave 400 for the body to use.
The 1200 is already 1000 easily below what would sustain you at your weight, if not more.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11430776

diverdiza

Hi. Thanks for an interesting post. I did the calculations and had to raise my age by a year to 45 (not so nice but anyway!)
I'd be very interested in your input on my case?

To start, I am confused about the results I am getting from my Polar concerning my fitness tests - according to it I am making no progress or getting LESS fit even though my resting heart rate is improved and I am able to work harder than before!?! Could this be related to the increase in age that I entered? The polar puts me in the 16-19 range if I enter my activity level as low (which I would have said it was). However if i enter the level as moderate than the polar puts me in the 40s - elite!

I have followed various links to VOmax tests in the last few days - not sure which site I used but there was one where you could calculate based on RHR or a 1 mile walk or 1,5 mile jog and I get significant discrepancies depending on which I used - 40 odd (using RHR), 17 on the walk and 26 on the jog! [I haven't done the one on the brainmac site because I don't have an assistant and because I don't know the different levels of incline that my treadmill goes to.]

Also my MHR is interesting: I've been exercising on my treadmill, alternating between walking 4-5 km/hr and jogging a minute at a time. During the jogging phase my HR was getting up to high 160s, then I would back off (walk) till its in the 130 range before repeating. After doing that a few times I have found my HR was getting lower (below 160) and it took an increase in the incline to get back up to the 160s.

According to the Polar my most recent work out was at an average of 141 and a max of 166.

I don't know if I'm working at too high a rate - I feel 100% fine after, and in fact my HR comes down quite quickly.

Thanks.

heybales

Hi. Thanks for an interesting post. I did the calculations and had to raise my age by a year to 45 (not so nice but anyway!)
I'd be very interested in your input on my case?

To start, I am confused about the results I am getting from my Polar concerning my fitness tests - according to it I am making no progress or getting LESS fit even though my resting heart rate is improved and I am able to work harder than before!?! Could this be related to the increase in age that I entered? The polar puts me in the 16-19 range if I enter my activity level as low (which I would have said it was). However if i enter the level as moderate than the polar puts me in the 40s - elite!

I have followed various links to VOmax tests in the last few days - not sure which site I used but there was one where you could calculate based on RHR or a 1 mile walk or 1,5 mile jog and I get significant discrepancies depending on which I used - 40 odd (using RHR), 17 on the walk and 26 on the jog! [I haven't done the one on the brainmac site because I don't have an assistant and because I don't know the different levels of incline that my treadmill goes to.]

Also my MHR is interesting: I've been exercising on my treadmill, alternating between walking 4-5 km/hr and jogging a minute at a time. During the jogging phase my HR was getting up to high 160s, then I would back off (walk) till its in the 130 range before repeating. After doing that a few times I have found my HR was getting lower (below 160) and it took an increase in the incline to get back up to the 160s.

According to the Polar my most recent work out was at an average of 141 and a max of 166.

I don't know if I'm working at too high a rate - I feel 100% fine after, and in fact my HR comes down quite quickly.

Regarding the 1 yr difference, I wouldn't even worry about that, so minor.
Much bigger factor is getting decent estimate on your HRmax. That really has a bearing on how many calories you really burn, and what the HRM is estimating for you.

For instance, if your actual HRmax is 170, than that time at 166 is massive calorie burn, very intense. But if really 185, then it is not as intense at 166, and not as big a calorie burn. So the Polar has estimated 175 (220-age), and that could be one direction or another depending on where you really are at.

Excellent job for having fast heart rate recovery. HRR is great indication of cardio improvements, some watches even log that value for 1 min after your workout, so you can keep tabs on it.

So it sounds like you have a Polar that also estimates your VO2max, and hopefully lets you manually enter it. It takes your resting HR, your comments as to fitness level, does calc, and now that VO2max is also used in calcs.

So here's the great thing - Polar got that method from a study, that showed great accuracy for estimating VO2max purely from user choices. They tweaked it by including RHR, or rather by if below certain level, you are lifetime athlete.

But, the Polar method relies on your BMI value, since they have your height and weight, they know it.
The study they go after used BMI, and more accurately, bodyfat% formula's.

Use this spreadsheet - the HRM tab. Use the link on one of the other tabs regarding estimating bodyfat% first and get yours, if you don't already.
Use upper section and put in your details.
Use the middle section and answer the question about amount of exercise, and it will spit out your VO2max based on bodyfat% and the answers to those questions, very much like Polar is doing. But because based on BF%, more accurate.
Then enter that value in your watch. And after initially starting your exercise, your VO2max won't change that much unless you are specifically working out a certain way to maximize it, and even then not that much movement.
So use HRR as indication of fitness level.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Amt7QBR9-c6MdGVTbGswLUUzUHNVVUlNSW9wZWloeUE

Side point on working harder than before. If with cardio, you can keep your workouts at such a high level that your system never gets a chance to recover, rebuild, and improve. You will plateau, stop improving or get worse, and many times find your RHR starting to increase.
Confirm you do not do day after day of 60 min or more of intense cardio, you need a rest and recovery day in there.
Use that spreadsheet on HRM tab to get some zones, and common advice on when to use them to have smart useful workouts

diverdiza

Thanks very much.
My Polar is the F11 and I can input different values.
Interestingly enough, your spreadsheet, with the BF%, gives almost exactly the same VO2max as the Polar. So I guess I should go with this figure even if the RHR calc gives a much higher VO2max..

Thanks for the note about allowing recovery time - I do take days off inbetween. I was thinking of adding more days but if I do I will keep them at a lower intensity.

iluvmyortiz1122

I'm not sure my Polar is right for me I do a lot of strength training doing Crossfit...we do cardio, maybe 25-50% of the time. I was just reading that the Polar is only accurate for cardio workouts and not strength training.

heybales

I'm not sure my Polar is right for me I do a lot of strength training doing Crossfit...we do cardio, maybe 25-50% of the time. I was just reading that the Polar is only accurate for cardio workouts and not strength training.

Correct, most of them are going to be that way.

Polar does have one model (take a guess if it's a cheaper one!) for weight lifting, it can tell when the effort seems to be anaerobic, and therefore just doesn't calculate calorie burn on those high HR's during that time. Rest of the time is calculated.

Garmin does the same thing, knows anaerobic and doesn't count it the same since it's not.

I'll put it this way.

My Polar would typically give me over 600 cal/hr for weight lifting. 2 sets of 8 to 12 reps on 7 lifts, 1 min recovery between sets and 2-3 min between lifts.

My Garmin gave me 200-250 for the same workout.

And looking at the HR levels reached, the Polar held steady - if it had been a cardio workout. Which it wasn't.
The Garmin correctly reflected that fact.