Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

runfreddyrun

i just can't understand the purpose of this. and i'm annoyed that polar doesn't have a more accurate way to measure calories. how hard would it be to include BF in the user information? i have a pretty good idea what my BF is because i got it tested in a body pod. although it was a year ago and i was 12 lbs lighter, i think it's probably a good number to use.

please confirm i am correct in this:

BF BMR: 1381

I had to adjust the age up to 91 (I'm 40) and the height down to 60 inches (i'm 64 inches) to get the number to work out. So now I enter this new age and height in my polar FT60?

and what is the result of all this? does this adjust the HR zones so that my max HR is less that it currently is (180)? will it show me burning more or less calories?

any feedback would be greatly appreciated. thanks

btw - i adjusted height and age. i have a polar FT60. not sure if that is considered one of the "nicer' ones but i saw where you said that the age calc is sometimes used for other things.

please advise.

wannaberunner33

bump for comfusion's sake

heybales

i just can't understand the purpose of this. and i'm annoyed that polar doesn't have a more accurate way to measure calories. how hard would it be to include BF in the user information? i have a pretty good idea what my BF is because i got it tested in a body pod. although it was a year ago and i was 12 lbs lighter, i think it's probably a good number to use.

please confirm i am correct in this:

BF BMR: 1381

I had to adjust the age up to 91 (I'm 40) and the height down to 60 inches (i'm 64 inches) to get the number to work out. So now I enter this new age and height in my polar FT60?

and what is the result of all this? does this adjust the HR zones so that my max HR is less that it currently is (180)? will it show me burning more or less calories?

any feedback would be greatly appreciated. thanks

btw - i adjusted height and age. i have a polar FT60. not sure if that is considered one of the "nicer' ones but i saw where you said that the age calc is sometimes used for other things.

please advise.

Polar? Try any HRM maker. And the fault is the people buying them wanting it to do so actually.

There is a lose correlation between HR and calorie burn if your workout is right, the problem is asking for something that isn't possible.

You are correct though, they could include BF% for better attempt at accurate estimate. Make it an option, if not entered, use BMI and BMR as normal.

So that's what you are trying to obtain, for their results to end up with what a better BMR estimate using BF% results in.
But you have to tweak what they make available.

You would definitely want to adjust your HRmax back where it should be, because yes, the HRM is doing 220-age calc and assuming that is correct HRmax, obviously at this point not anywhere near correct, and actually 220-age probably isn't either.
As a woman, you have better odds of it being more than 10 bpm off that calc.

The end result of this is you have less Lean Body Mass than avg person your age, weight, height.
As such, your BMR is less.
As such, you burn more calories at equal HR compared to before. For instance, now it'll think it's a 90 yr old putting forth that effort, more calorie burn compared to before.

Of course, as the first topic message points out, HRmax is more important than this value.
So confirm you adjust it in personal stats while in there.
When that is adjusted, your HR zones will remain the same.

Since the age calc on some is used for other things, you could see how much height to adjust to end up with the same BMR number. Sounds like you'd have to be even shorter of course, shorter is smaller BMR. Might make it easier though.

And then every 5lbs lost, redo the bodyfat% estimate, see if any adjustment needed.

krnlcsf

bump

yecatsml

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/

So I did the walk test today (my first access to a track) and my average for the last lap was 93. So I just add 60 and get 153? It seems low. I have hit 147 on wind sprints...

heybales

So I did the walk test today (my first access to a track) and my average for the last lap was 93. So I just add 60 and get 153? It seems low. I have hit 147 on wind sprints...

Walking as fast as you could, only 93?

On the wind sprints, did you have to stop after like reaching that 147, or could stay at that level for 60 seconds?

You may be so cardiovascularly fit that the test underestimates. I haven't done anything but a true maximal test, but I bet I'd hit 110-120 hitting maybe 4.5mph. And that would be some funny walking going that fast. I think I'd do it at night!

yecatsml

So I did the walk test today (my first access to a track) and my average for the last lap was 93. So I just add 60 and get 153? It seems low. I have hit 147 on wind sprints...

Walking as fast as you could, only 93?

On the wind sprints, did you have to stop after like reaching that 147, or could stay at that level for 60 seconds?

You may be so cardiovascularly fit that the test underestimates. I haven't done anything but a true maximal test, but I bet I'd hit 110-120 hitting maybe 4.5mph. And that would be some funny walking going that fast. I think I'd do it at night!

I did look pretty funny! I was higher in the middle of the test, then it leveled out a bit. My high was 117. The avg was 93 for the last lap. I walk average about 5 miles a day at a 14:25 pace normally. (I have short stubby legs for my height). For the wind sprints, I was doing 1 min on 1 min off, so I did hold it for 1 min. I plan on trying the walk test again, I know when I do my daily walks my HR recovers very quickly if I hit an level section or a bit of a downhill.

poodlelaise

Bump

TheChangingMan

Bump for later

rasengarnx3

So this mean that i have to change my fitibt profile too in order to get the best result right?
I'm so depressed. I have 24.5% of bodyfat, i am a 22yrs with 36yrs metabolism. This is killing me inside.
By the way, can u suggest a HRM (my budget is around 100$) that can count calorie burn during strength training and aerobic exercise?
P.S. Thank you for posting this very useful information.

heybales

So this mean that i have to change my fitibt profile too in order to get the best result right?
I'm so depressed. I have 24.5% of bodyfat, i am a 22yrs with 36yrs metabolism. This is killing me inside.
By the way, can u suggest a HRM (my budget is around 100$) that can count calorie burn during strength training and aerobic exercise?
P.S. Thank you for posting this very useful information.

Garmin FR60.
Right at $100 retail if you don't get the optional footpod right then. That would allow distance tracking, close to GPS, when that matters. Also get optional bike kit if desired.
Before that, good 'ole HRM with some great features to it.

And 24% bodyfat is really very good, that's within healthy range.

And true, the FitBit has those same stats, and calculates your BMR based on age, weight, height, and uses that for determining how many calories you burn each day.
But with bodyfat% estimate, you know what a more accurate BMR estimate is based on weight, BF%.
So that would be correct for correcting it.

Here is another method that is just as valid.
Instead of adjusting the age to reach the same BMR figure, adjust the height. Just means you are shorter than you really are right now.
That should be easier to adjust on the FitBit site.

stephenson2012

Bump for later

NotThePest

bump

BSchoberg

Bump for later --- just recalculated my TDEE and thought I should probably update my HRM to make sure I'm getting an accurate calorie burn, so that my new TDEE is a GOOD TDEE! :laugh:

jennkain97

bump

smilebhappy

bump to read later...

wendybrat75

I have the Polar FT7. Thank you for sharing!

rasengarnx3

Thank you for replying
So, the Garmin FR60 HRM can also calculate calorie from strength training too right?
I really want to get the number as accurate as possible because i'm about to start the metabolism reset soon.

heybales

Thank you for replying
So, the Garmin FR60 HRM can also calculate calorie from strength training too right?
I really want to get the number as accurate as possible because i'm about to start the metabolism reset soon.

Actually, on further research beyond the manual, it does not.

https://support.garmin.com/support/searchSupport/case.faces?caseId={bbfb6b70-4baf-11de-f35c-000000000000}

It uses the same Athlete Profile the others use, but they use it in their own calculations. Still more accurate than similar priced Polars because of including VO2max estimate, which is what that profile selection does.

https://support.garmin.com/support/searchSupport/case.faces?caseId={d47f64e0-a30b-11de-ea2e-000000000000}

It'll be more than $100 if you want that level of accuracy then.

The Polar FT80 with strength training functions included is $200 on Amazon. They don't claim it's calorie burn is correct for the strength training though, maybe it was a more expensive model that did that.
From comments of others - perhaps not.
http://forum.polar.fi/showthread.php?p=63681

The Garmin FR110 appears to be around $144 and would be. It also comes with GPS built in if useful. Always can disable though.
http://www.firstbeat.fi/consumers/heart-rate-monitors/firstbeat-intelligence-in-heart-rate-monitors#energyexpenditure

thenewmrsfitz

bump