Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

Options
1…2122232426

Replies

  • PatWasHere
    PatWasHere Posts: 19
    Options
    Thanks for the info. I am 45 6 foot, 185 lb.

    I used this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FYZMYK/ref=oh_details_o02_s00_i00

    to get my bf% which is 17% . So that made me a 38 year old! Is it ok to use that device for the BF%?

    Hope this helps my FT7. Today at lunch (before making this adjustment) it said I burned 770 calories on a 1.5 hour walk. Seemed high to me.
  • bluelena
    bluelena Posts: 304 Member
    Options
    This is such an awesome thread.

    Background - started doing Turbo Jam, using the MFP calorie burn calculations about 3 months ago. Using that, and eating back my calories, I've lost about a pound a week. So, I figure the MFP calculations can't be that "off", since if they were inflated, I'd be eating too much and wouldn't be losing that pound a week.

    I'm getting ready to start Turbo Fire, which includes HIIT, so I decided to get an HRM to more accurately gauge calorie burns during workouts.

    With both my "real" info, and my adjusted age (I'm actually 41 but the first formula in the OP put me at 51, heh), the Polar FT60 showed about 200 less calories burned than MFP calculates for a TJ workout. Both workouts were done on separate days, same workout. I did notice that I was going "out of zone" a lot during the workout where I was 51 - well above zone 3. There was only a 23 calorie difference between my real age and my adjusted age for the two workouts.

    So, I know I need to adjust my max heart rate, then. I don't know when I'll have access to a treadmill, so I used a formula I found online that basically said for women to subtract their age from 226 and use that number. I'm sure it's not that accurate, but it ended up being 16 bpm higher than what the HRM had calculated, and when the zones were adjusted, they looked about right, I guess.

    Am I headed in the right direction? My plan now is to use these new settings and do one of the TJ workouts to see how the calorie burn matches up to the MFP calorie calculation. I figure if I can get it close, then I'll be on the right track.

    Who knew calibrating a HRM could be so complicated?
  • rowdylibrarian
    rowdylibrarian Posts: 251 Member
    Options
    Okay, would somebody mind checking to see if I did this right? Because my new Polar FT7 seems to be calculating REALLY high:

    Stats: Female, 39 years old, 5'3", 157 pounds 38% body fat (according to my trainer's Omron machine-Covert Bailey was a full 10 percentage points lower at 28%?????? )

    I'm aiming for eating 1650 calories per day, in the EM2WL style, though sometimes I'm a little under that. I'm not doing a lot of cardio work right now, but I am "lifting heavy" 3 times per week.

    My BMR without the body fat %: 1444

    My BMR with the body fat of 38%(Omron): 1326

    Adjusted age to 64 to get the other BMR


    So if this is right, do I change my birth year on the Polar to be born in 1947? Or should I have used the other body fat number? Thanks!
  • rowdylibrarian
    rowdylibrarian Posts: 251 Member
    Options
    P.S. During my weight-lifting session the other day, it said that I had burned 400 calories for the hour. In my 1.6ish mile walk yesterday, it said, 287, my Fitbit said 197.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Okay, would somebody mind checking to see if I did this right? Because my new Polar FT7 seems to be calculating REALLY high:

    Stats: Female, 39 years old, 5'3", 157 pounds 38% body fat (according to my trainer's Omron machine-Covert Bailey was a full 10 percentage points lower at 28%?????? )

    I'm aiming for eating 1650 calories per day, in the EM2WL style, though sometimes I'm a little under that. I'm not doing a lot of cardio work right now, but I am "lifting heavy" 3 times per week.

    My BMR without the body fat %: 1444

    My BMR with the body fat of 38%(Omron): 1326

    Adjusted age to 64 to get the other BMR

    So if this is right, do I change my birth year on the Polar to be born in 1947? Or should I have used the other body fat number? Thanks!

    P.S. During my weight-lifting session the other day, it said that I had burned 400 calories for the hour. In my 1.6ish mile walk yesterday, it said, 287, my Fitbit said 197.

    Very strange, this topic never showed up with new responses to it. Thanks MFP glitches.

    You would indeed change to 1947, so biologically older as far as LBM is concerned - for now, I know you are lifting.

    But, the biggest factor to that watch and calorie burn estimate - HRmax. I'd suggest skipping this BMR adjustment since it is so close.

    Use that spreadsheet, HRM tab, for some links on estimating it better, or self-testing it too.

    Oh, forget using it for weight lifting. HRM's are only valid for steady-state aerobic activity.
    Not daily activity below 90 bpm, not anaerobic activity like weight lifting or hard intervals above say 150-160.
    Probably 1/3 to 1/4 whatever the HRM says for weight lifting. I've actually found MFP database to be very correct on that. I have a HRM that does measure anaerobic correctly, and always within 25 cals, though I don't wear it anymore.

    Good news, that HRM tab, once you entered in your stats at top, calculated your VO2max that more expensive Polars would use, and estimated/tested your HRmax and entered that, will have your personalized calorie burn at the very bottom, based on a study funded by Polar actually.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    With both my "real" info, and my adjusted age (I'm actually 41 but the first formula in the OP put me at 51, heh), the Polar FT60 showed about 200 less calories burned than MFP calculates for a TJ workout. Both workouts were done on separate days, same workout. I did notice that I was going "out of zone" a lot during the workout where I was 51 - well above zone 3. There was only a 23 calorie difference between my real age and my adjusted age for the two workouts.

    So, I know I need to adjust my max heart rate, then. I don't know when I'll have access to a treadmill, so I used a formula I found online that basically said for women to subtract their age from 226 and use that number. I'm sure it's not that accurate, but it ended up being 16 bpm higher than what the HRM had calculated, and when the zones were adjusted, they looked about right, I guess.

    Am I headed in the right direction? My plan now is to use these new settings and do one of the TJ workouts to see how the calorie burn matches up to the MFP calorie calculation. I figure if I can get it close, then I'll be on the right track.

    Who knew calibrating a HRM could be so complicated?

    Very true, and sadly women get the short end of that stick. Women with that nicer Polar and default settings was up to 33% inflated for the majority of women tested in a study.
    Correct stats - up to 11% off for minority.

    And yes, HRmax is bigger factor, and I believe you get VO2max stat too, right, another big factor.

    Use the spreadsheet linked in this post, the HRM tab, to estimate your VO2max or confirm what the Polar defaulted to, and some links to easier self-test, or better calc's for HRmax to use.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/750920-spreadsheet-for-bmr-tdee-deficit-macro-calcs-hrm-zones

    And if truly doing HIIT, as post above shares, it'll be inflated. Because the HRM thinks you reached that high heartrate aerobically - but you didn't, it was anaerobic, and high HR was from stress of the workout, the ability to carry more oxygen with each pump was left at a HR lower, past that just pure stress. Just like your HR goes up for stress.

    If using that info for eating back calories correctly, figure a HIIT session (all out max HR for 15-60 sec followed by recovery for 3x as long is basic HIIT) really burned about 20% less than what is reported.
  • kiekie
    kiekie Posts: 289 Member
    Options
    Oh boy, this looks complicated. And I thought just getting a HRM would do the trick and get me an accurate calorie burn.

    Bumping for when my Polar FT7 arrives later today!
  • chrissilini
    chrissilini Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    Oh boy, this looks complicated. And I thought just getting a HRM would do the trick and get me an accurate calorie burn.

    Bumping for when my Polar FT7 arrives later today!

    I've not made any special adjustments to my HRM and I've lost 30 pounds. Can't be that wrong and if so, I'm still losing and that's ok with me.
  • pinkraynedropjacki
    pinkraynedropjacki Posts: 3,027 Member
    Options
    Wow so glad I came on about now. It took me a while to figure out how to do it....long day & bad day combined..... and I managed to work out I'm 3 years younger...woo hooo. I would have been way way way older 7 months ago. OMG so glad I found you guys. Polar FT60 reset at 33 instead of 37...
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the info. I am 45 6 foot, 185 lb.

    I used this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FYZMYK/ref=oh_details_o02_s00_i00

    to get my bf% which is 17% . So that made me a 38 year old! Is it ok to use that device for the BF%?

    Hope this helps my FT7. Today at lunch (before making this adjustment) it said I burned 770 calories on a 1.5 hour walk. Seemed high to me.

    It actually has semi-decent chance, because it asks for so much other personal info, that despite the fact the impedance pathway is rather brief and not really where you see fat (one hand to the other) compared to other areas, it is decent enough. It'll be great for seeing a direction, as long as you always use it at the same hydration level..

    The difference between 38 and 45 will be minimal for calorie burn actually, the bigger factor for you is probably the HRM default HRmax stat.
    220-45 = 175, and if yours is really say 190, than any workouts in the 160 range would appear to be rather intense workouts, and not at all correct.

    HRmax more important stat to nail.

    If the walk was mainly level, a calculator will actually be more accurate than the HRM for walking less than 4mph. It literally takes so much energy to move so much mass at so fast a pace. HR doesn't matter, unless you walk super efficiently or really inefficiently.

    http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

    Use 1% grade if outside to mimic wind resistance.

    And Gross is what the HRM would be reporting, but for purpose of eating back, NET would be used.

    If you managed 4mph, you would have actually been up at 717 calories, so pretty close. Probably the difference with HRmax.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/466973-i-want-to-test-for-my-max-heart-rate-vo2-max
  • bluelena
    bluelena Posts: 304 Member
    Options
    Use the spreadsheet linked in this post, the HRM tab, to estimate your VO2max or confirm what the Polar defaulted to, and some links to easier self-test, or better calc's for HRmax to use.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/750920-spreadsheet-for-bmr-tdee-deficit-macro-calcs-hrm-zones

    And if truly doing HIIT, as post above shares, it'll be inflated. Because the HRM thinks you reached that high heartrate aerobically - but you didn't, it was anaerobic, and high HR was from stress of the workout, the ability to carry more oxygen with each pump was left at a HR lower, past that just pure stress. Just like your HR goes up for stress.

    If using that info for eating back calories correctly, figure a HIIT session (all out max HR for 15-60 sec followed by recovery for 3x as long is basic HIIT) really burned about 20% less than what is reported.

    This is VERY good information. Thanks so much for all of your help!

    And guess what? After my first week using the polar, it made me re-do the "fitness test" which is supposed to calculate the VO2max. I put my "real" info back into it, re-did the test, and voila! Now everything seems to be on point.
  • HappilyLifts
    HappilyLifts Posts: 429 Member
    Options
    BUMP! Took me ages to relocate this. It fell off the bottom of My Topics a long time ago. Wanted to revisit the info
  • Flowers4Julia
    Flowers4Julia Posts: 521 Member
    Options
    bump
  • marvybells
    marvybells Posts: 1,984 Member
    Options
    bump
  • marvybells
    marvybells Posts: 1,984 Member
    Options
    ok, so now that i had a chance to read through (most) of the post, i am wondering where this info is coming from. I tried to do some research online on this topic but the only hit i get is for this thread. So can you please tell me where the information regarding what polar uses to estimate calorie burn was found or where those other forums with people discussing this subject are? I would really like to read more about it....thanks!

    btw i adjusted my height not weight...is that ok, does it work the same either way?
  • LizardQueen4PointOh
    LizardQueen4PointOh Posts: 245 Member
    Options
    bump
  • dream_big
    dream_big Posts: 75 Member
    Options
    bumping for when I have more time to go through this
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    ok, so now that i had a chance to read through (most) of the post, i am wondering where this info is coming from. I tried to do some research online on this topic but the only hit i get is for this thread. So can you please tell me where the information regarding what polar uses to estimate calorie burn was found or where those other forums with people discussing this subject are? I would really like to read more about it....thanks!

    btw i adjusted my height not weight...is that ok, does it work the same either way?

    It's been so long ago digging around on this those original people researching are long gone, and since further research and testing on my own and with several on friends list that have different Polar's, it's not BMR, it's BMI, that is used to calculate VO2max. From that and HRmax is the calorie burn estimate.

    I just don't have down what formula exactly they are using, or they may have tweaked one, but very close by about 50 calories over for avg effort for 1 hr. And that was tweaking the height to hopefully have it assume a known VO2max figure that was actually used on another nicer Polar that actually has that stat.
  • ilovethelaw07
    ilovethelaw07 Posts: 37
    Options
    Bump for when my FT60 arrives! Thanks for the info!
  • marvybells
    marvybells Posts: 1,984 Member
    Options
    ok, so now that i had a chance to read through (most) of the post, i am wondering where this info is coming from. I tried to do some research online on this topic but the only hit i get is for this thread. So can you please tell me where the information regarding what polar uses to estimate calorie burn was found or where those other forums with people discussing this subject are? I would really like to read more about it....thanks!

    btw i adjusted my height not weight...is that ok, does it work the same either way?

    It's been so long ago digging around on this those original people researching are long gone, and since further research and testing on my own and with several on friends list that have different Polar's, it's not BMR, it's BMI, that is used to calculate VO2max. From that and HRmax is the calorie burn estimate.

    I just don't have down what formula exactly they are using, or they may have tweaked one, but very close by about 50 calories over for avg effort for 1 hr. And that was tweaking the height to hopefully have it assume a known VO2max figure that was actually used on another nicer Polar that actually has that stat.

    I don't fully understand. I have a polar Ft40 which has the vo2max test feature on it.

    so was i supposed to mess around with my user info like it did or should i just leave it alone?

Categories