Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

Options
1…2123252627

Replies

  • Pollux
    Pollux Posts: 42
    Options
    bump
  • Shrinking_Moody
    Shrinking_Moody Posts: 270 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the info!
  • mgs68pony
    mgs68pony Posts: 306 Member
    Options
    BUMP FOR LATER
  • dandaninc
    dandaninc Posts: 392
    Options
    Bump for when I purchase mine.
  • gemmaleigh1989
    gemmaleigh1989 Posts: 241 Member
    Options
    This is so confusing :(

    First question is regarding eating back exercise calories?!! My BMR Is 1600 (using Harris Benedict equation) so to create a deficit to lose weight I aim to eat 1200-1300 cals a day and exercise on top of that meaning I'm netting at well below 1200.... I always thought that's how to lose weight by creating a calorie deficit? What's wrong with netting below 1200? I know eating below 1200 Is a big no-no but I thought as long as you consume at least that, whatever you net at isn't an issue regarding metabolism??

    I'm getting a polar in the next day or two and want to get my head around this first :S

    I am tossing up between the ft4 and ft60. The only reason I'd go the ft60 is because it has the fitness tests on there meaning in theory, it should be more accurate... If tweaking the stats of the ft4 as stated In your original post, does it make the ft4 as accurate? I read somewhere that you should never buy a HRM where you can't test or manually put in your vo2 max so I was going to fork out for the ft60 for that reason :/
  • BlueEyedTXmom
    BlueEyedTXmom Posts: 179 Member
    Options
    bump
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    This is so confusing :(

    First question is regarding eating back exercise calories?!! My BMR Is 1600 (using Harris Benedict equation) so to create a deficit to lose weight I aim to eat 1200-1300 cals a day and exercise on top of that meaning I'm netting at well below 1200.... I always thought that's how to lose weight by creating a calorie deficit? What's wrong with netting below 1200? I know eating below 1200 Is a big no-no but I thought as long as you consume at least that, whatever you net at isn't an issue regarding metabolism??

    I'm getting a polar in the next day or two and want to get my head around this first :S

    I am tossing up between the ft4 and ft60. The only reason I'd go the ft60 is because it has the fitness tests on there meaning in theory, it should be more accurate... If tweaking the stats of the ft4 as stated In your original post, does it make the ft4 as accurate? I read somewhere that you should never buy a HRM where you can't test or manually put in your vo2 max so I was going to fork out for the ft60 for that reason :/

    The FT60 is just using a variation of this formula.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/577839-hrm-s-with-vo2max-stat-improve-calorie-estimate

    It is NOT giving you a fitness test to better estimate VO2max, but it does at least give you the stat to correct, and likely would need to still.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

    Regarding BMR though.

    Just confused over what BMR means. Go to MFP - Tools - BMR Calc and read the blurb. Or Google what it means.

    Now, does that sound like the calorie level you must create a deficit too? Correct, no. Unless you really are bed-ridden and do no activity. The minute you are awake you are actually at RestingMR, and RMR is higher than BMR.

    1200 is the recommended bare minimum to eat for someone not exercising. Bare, safe, no benefit, minimum.

    You here to make your body better, or to do the bare minimum?
    Ever buy a cheap product, like a tool, or clothes? How long do you expect the cheapest to last? How much stress can you put on it before it's ruined and you throw it away and buy another? How long until you discover that for some clothes or tools it's better to have it last longer by spending more money just once up front.
    Ever watch the Holmes shows? Minimum code requirements - is it best for your bare safety, or best for performance and longevity?

    How do you want to view your body and exercise?

    You made it 1200 BTW, probably because you selected the NON-recommended 1lb per week weight loss, and selected Sedentary activity level, whether true or not. Those with BodyMediaFit's and FitBit's discover their normal daily activity outside exercise (which is what MFP is asking for) is really at Lightly Active level.
  • microburst20
    microburst20 Posts: 130
    Options
    bump
  • yecatsml
    yecatsml Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    Just to make sure I have this right - my Polar FT40 asks for BF input as well as age, height and weight so I still want to change it?

    Age 41
    Height 64"
    Weight 149
    BF measured by BodPod 7/21 23.5%

    BMR - 1405
    BF - 24.5 using CB (nice that it is pretty darn accurate!)
    BMR After BF input - 1482

    I can't tell if the website is broken/down as I change the age and nothing happens. I tried refreshing, clearing cache, etc. Anyway, it looks like 24 is the age I need to enter into the HRM instead of 41? It has been giving me what I think are low burn numbers - about 1/2 of what MFP and others show. (5.25 mi walk at 4mph consistently for 300 cal)
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Just to make sure I have this right - my Polar FT40 asks for BF input as well as age, height and weight so I still want to change it?

    Age 41
    Height 64"
    Weight 149
    BF measured by BodPod 7/21 23.5%

    BMR - 1405
    BF - 24.5 using CB (nice that it is pretty darn accurate!)
    BMR After BF input - 1482

    I can't tell if the website is broken/down as I change the age and nothing happens. I tried refreshing, clearing cache, etc. Anyway, it looks like 24 is the age I need to enter into the HRM instead of 41? It has been giving me what I think are low burn numbers - about 1/2 of what MFP and others show. (5.25 mi walk at 4mph consistently for 300 cal)

    Well, I didn't know that model asked for BF% - nope, use that, and VO2max for best accuracy from other thread that is already best bet.

    Change of age or height was merely to get around HRM's that don't let you change the other stats.
    You are so close anyway, won't make much of a difference.

    You are correct on that BMR site. When using the more accurate BMR based on bodyfat%, only weight matters, not age or anything else. The study on that BMR calc found age didn't matter. LBM just takes so much energy to run metabolism. Unless you are highly efficient cardiovascularly, or massively out of shape.

    Of course, that BMR calc is also deflated for over fat, because fat does require some energy use, but it isn't used in the calc.
  • AndreaL0918
    AndreaL0918 Posts: 47 Member
    Options
    bump, I'm looking at getting the FT7 adventually, want to read for later!
  • yecatsml
    yecatsml Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    Just to make sure I have this right - my Polar FT40 asks for BF input as well as age, height and weight so I still want to change it?

    Age 41
    Height 64"
    Weight 149
    BF measured by BodPod 7/21 23.5%

    BMR - 1405
    BF - 24.5 using CB (nice that it is pretty darn accurate!)
    BMR After BF input - 1482

    I can't tell if the website is broken/down as I change the age and nothing happens. I tried refreshing, clearing cache, etc. Anyway, it looks like 24 is the age I need to enter into the HRM instead of 41? It has been giving me what I think are low burn numbers - about 1/2 of what MFP and others show. (5.25 mi walk at 4mph consistently for 300 cal)

    Well, I didn't know that model asked for BF% - nope, use that, and VO2max for best accuracy from other thread that is already best bet.

    Change of age or height was merely to get around HRM's that don't let you change the other stats.
    You are so close anyway, won't make much of a difference.

    You are correct on that BMR site. When using the more accurate BMR based on bodyfat%, only weight matters, not age or anything else. The study on that BMR calc found age didn't matter. LBM just takes so much energy to run metabolism. Unless you are highly efficient cardiovascularly, or massively out of shape.

    Of course, that BMR calc is also deflated for over fat, because fat does require some energy use, but it isn't used in the calc.

    My mistake - it DOES NOT ask for BF input - for some reason I really thought I put it in when I set it up!

    So it looks like I need to put in an age of 24 to get 1484 as my BMR for the HRM (or would I use 25 which is 1480 - neither match, not sure if I should go high or low) - correct?
  • sakisus
    sakisus Posts: 13
    Options
    bump
  • cnphel0
    cnphel0 Posts: 45 Member
    Options
    Bump for later!
  • kemmy45
    kemmy45 Posts: 59
    Options
    Bump
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    My mistake - it DOES NOT ask for BF input - for some reason I really thought I put it in when I set it up!

    So it looks like I need to put in an age of 24 to get 1484 as my BMR for the HRM (or would I use 25 which is 1480 - neither match, not sure if I should go high or low) - correct?

    You don't have enough of an estimated BMR difference to worry about from those other stats.

    Your HRmax stat will have a much bigger bearing on attempted accuracy, getting that within 5 bpm.

    I'd do the 1 mile test or step test for better estimate of that stat.

    http://doctorholmes.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/determine-your-maximum-heart-rate-with-the-step-test/

    http://doctorholmes.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/determine-your-mhr-with-a-1-mile-walking-test/
  • imagineyes
    imagineyes Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    Doesn't the polar watch just give you a gross estimate?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Doesn't the polar watch just give you a gross estimate?

    Correct, all HRM's give gross, not net, estimates.
  • imagineyes
    imagineyes Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    So if I do the the BF% calculator thing, type in my 'new' age it will still show gross not net right?

    I tried and without the BF% it said my BMR was 1741 with the BF% it said 1785. And now I am 15 instead of 24..
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    So if I do the the BF% calculator thing, type in my 'new' age it will still show gross not net right?

    I tried and without the BF% it said my BMR was 1741 with the BF% it said 1785. And now I am 15 instead of 24..

    Oh yeah, that's too close to worry about. The variations there will be wiped out by other differences that cause inaccuracies.

    But yes, it'll always be gross.

Categories