Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

Options
12357…27

Replies

  • Jen2ssaint
    Jen2ssaint Posts: 14
    Options
    Bump for later
  • LordBezoar
    LordBezoar Posts: 625 Member
    Options
    I shall have to look into this, Thanks!
  • the_great_unknown
    the_great_unknown Posts: 194 Member
    Options
    bump & thanks!
  • rmk20togo
    rmk20togo Posts: 353 Member
    Options
    Get your avg NET figure, and adjust the age in the BMR calc without BF stat, so you know the avg age of someone with your current BMR.
    So in this case, again HRM thinks BMR is 1436 and basing calorie calc on that, but you really NET at say 1300, or shudder, 1200. So with slower metabolism comes slower burns on everything. So you are actually burning less than HRM is telling you.

    By adjusting those amounts, you can get it better in line.
    So pretend you do net 1300.
    So the avg lady at your height/weight with a BMR that low would be, .... ready ..... 80 yrs old.

    Now, after a week, you'll discover with less calorie burn really going on but you were really eating back more exercise calories previously, that your NET really wasn't at 1300, say it was really 1400.

    I'd suggest using that as a basis to NET up to your potential BMR, and enjoy the greater calorie burn that comes with all activity.
    But then again, many want to do the weight loss journey slowly with slower metabolism.

    Huh, metabolism and calorie burn of 13 yr old girl with your LBM, or avg 80 yr woman with your metabolism?
    Don't we always wish we could eat like we did when we were kids, or had the metabolism from back then?

    My average net over the past 30 days was 1230 (assuming HRM was accurate-which I now know isn't true). Using that number as a BMR, I'd be 94 YEARS OLD (and I'm 51)....what!?!?! OMG :sad: :sad:

    So I should tell my HRM that I'm 94 years old and try to NET up to 1613?

    For the record, I'm happy to lose as slow as necessary to cut fat and start seeing some of the muscle I've been trying build.

    You're the best! Thanks for taking so much time to help me. I really want to get this right. If this works, you'll be my hero!!!
  • Tobi1013
    Tobi1013 Posts: 732 Member
    Options
    Bumping for later.
  • SarahMorganP
    SarahMorganP Posts: 922 Member
    Options
    Wow thanks for making me feel stupid! :laugh: I have no idea at all what any of you are saying. :noway: I don't even know how to do anything with my Polar 7, I have my husband put all my info in for me.
  • sheri02r
    sheri02r Posts: 486 Member
    Options
    bump for later
  • LisaManySongs
    LisaManySongs Posts: 76
    Options
    bump
  • mes1119
    mes1119 Posts: 1,082 Member
    Options
    BUMP.

    But TBH, I try not to be so technical with my calories in and calories out. I don't exactly want to obsess.
  • peterson_jessica
    peterson_jessica Posts: 119
    Options
    bump for later. i'm off to work
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I'll change the setting today - about to head out for a walk to the REI store to buy a new pair of gloves for rowing which round trip will be about 2.5miles.

    I appreciate you saying that about the LBM but apparently not as the calculators say I am at 34.1%BF so my calorie burn stats will probably drop once I adjust the age to 54.

    So to confirm... that's the only thing I need to change is my age? (keep my weight the same (didn't do the other calculation)

    They will lower. But then again, with better estimate of MHR and VO2max, may come right back up. The submaximal tests can be both done the morning after a rest day.

    And since you are eating right, you'll keep dropping the weight and that means the LBM while staying the same hopefully, at lower weight, will help raise it back up.
    Just check every 5lb lost.
  • AmyLRed
    AmyLRed Posts: 894 Member
    Options
    on my way out the door, bump for later!
  • xtravisfx
    xtravisfx Posts: 44 Member
    Options
    bump
  • spikesmom
    spikesmom Posts: 441 Member
    Options
    bump
  • _Kitten_Kate
    _Kitten_Kate Posts: 520 Member
    Options
    bump...

    BUT...

    Ok... I think got it...

    If I have been netting around 1500-1600 on average.... my wt entered into HRM should be around 170...Which I ironically is my goal weight.

    But once constantly netting above 1880-BMR and no wt change.. I change it to my current wt and age to 33 yrs old.(4 yrs younger)

    How long should I stay above BMR with my net before I reassess?
    a month?
  • Shayztar
    Shayztar Posts: 415 Member
    Options
    Why can't this whole weight loss thing be easy? I must admit...the first post was a little TL;DR all of it. But I gather that that NOW my HEART RATE MONITOR is lying about my calories burned too? Like seriously...WTF? I guess I thought I was on the right track joining MFP and monitoring my calorie input and output. Then I learned that the calories burned according my MFP was often inaccurate. Then I started using the cals burned on my treadmill. Come to find that the machine is even worse guage then the site. I buy a Polar FT4 because it's supposedly a great and accurate HRM for exercise calories burned. Now I'm being told that it's not correct because I either over or under eat? Seriously...WTH? Thanks for the informative post, but it just served to confuse and upset me even more.

    Now that I'm done ranting...

    Honest question. How much of a calorie difference are we talking here? Hundreds of calories burned per workout?
  • CyberEd312
    CyberEd312 Posts: 3,536 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    My average net over the past 30 days was 1230 (assuming HRM was accurate-which I now know isn't true). Using that number as a BMR, I'd be 94 YEARS OLD (and I'm 51)....what!?!?! OMG :sad: :sad:

    So I should tell my HRM that I'm 94 years old and try to NET up to 1613?

    For the record, I'm happy to lose as slow as necessary to cut fat and start seeing some of the muscle I've been trying build.

    You're the best! Thanks for taking so much time to help me. I really want to get this right. If this works, you'll be my hero!!!

    I'd suggest adding on 200 cal per day for a week, and then another 200 for another week, and you are there.
    So like, if you'll start doing 1430 right now, keep age at 51 because guess what, that's what is correct for that BMR!
    Then a week later when netting over 1600 (best to be over BMR slightly), you can use 13 yrs old.

    Wow - 94 to 13 in potentially 2 weeks, though it might really take 3.

    Also, if you want MFP setup to just do that automatically, like lower the daily goal as weight goes down, do the following setup.
    Settings - Diet/Fitness profile
    Activity Level - Lightly Active
    Weight loss goal - 1 lb weekly

    That should set your goal to about 1680 daily net. And then with more accurate calorie estimates of your favorite avg 13 yr old - you'll keep that muscle and make it stronger.

    Side comment, it's impossible for the body to build muscle with suppressed metabolism. After the exercise takes from the calories you eat, if the rest is below your real potential BMR, the body has to decide how it slows down to take care of functions the BMR does. Building muscle is not one of them.

    But eating higher, it is possible, though very difficult. But after 5lb drop, remeasure and see if you have gotten younger yet. And don't be upset if you got older, which is possible.
  • carlyholly
    carlyholly Posts: 52
    Options
    Bump, thanks!
  • _Kitten_Kate
    _Kitten_Kate Posts: 520 Member
    Options
    Bump
    Seriously? 304lbs?
    amazing!!!!!!

Categories