Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

_Kitten_Kate

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?

You are correct if changing the weight lowers it better than upping the age. Older doesn't drop it as much. But I thought a much more interesting effect to see what age you would be with a suppressed metabolism.

And true, if you can net at the higher BMR that body composition gives you, even better, and younger in that sense.
One week, you don't have much change to effect.

Ok.. so tonight I had my HRM set at 170lbs... and Also wore my BMF....
Walked for an hour and 23 mins.... in zone for 53 mins avg 124bpm...max of 148bpm.
calories...642 per HRM

Per BMF...629.

Before.... they were exact match when walking.

So, with this... I assume I have been burning more than what I thought?

Still having a hard time netting that much... especially when I am walking and or working out. I would have to consume close to 3000 calories or more. That's a tough one.

How does this play into your other ways of ... eating above... and not worrying about eating back calories....it all evens out on rest days?

P.S. To change by age makes it 95!!!! @ 1600bmr

kkester63

beep

krsaxton

bump

fitjunk

bumpity for later!

stevenc78

pmub

tropicalgirl34

Bump for future reference! Thx for the info.

lilbitsc89

bump for later

heybales

Ok.. so tonight I had my HRM set at 170lbs... and Also wore my BMF....
Walked for an hour and 23 mins.... in zone for 53 mins avg 124bpm...max of 148bpm.
calories...642 per HRM

Per BMF...629.

Before.... they were exact match when walking.

So, with this... I assume I have been burning more than what I thought?

Still having a hard time netting that much... especially when I am walking and or working out. I would have to consume close to 3000 calories or more. That's a tough one.

How does this play into your other ways of ... eating above... and not worrying about eating back calories....it all evens out on rest days?

P.S. To change by age makes it 95!!!! @ 1600bmr

Lighter weight at same HR is burning less calories, so that calorie burn would have been much more at higher weight. So correct you were getting overstated estimate previously. Sounds like a strenuous walk though at that good HR. BMF probably didn't know how much effort.

So that HR is more than the calm daily activity type mentioned before, but still low enough you could get by eating back half of them.

Lonecandy

Bump

XtyAnn17

bump

LolaVersion2

Interesting. Thx

_Kitten_Kate

Ok.. so tonight I had my HRM set at 170lbs... and Also wore my BMF....
Walked for an hour and 23 mins.... in zone for 53 mins avg 124bpm...max of 148bpm.
calories...642 per HRM

Per BMF...629.

Before.... they were exact match when walking.

So, with this... I assume I have been burning more than what I thought?

Still having a hard time netting that much... especially when I am walking and or working out. I would have to consume close to 3000 calories or more. That's a tough one.

How does this play into your other ways of ... eating above... and not worrying about eating back calories....it all evens out on rest days?

P.S. To change by age makes it 95!!!! @ 1600bmr

Lighter weight at same HR is burning less calories, so that calorie burn would have been much more at higher weight. So correct you were getting overstated estimate previously. Sounds like a strenuous walk though at that good HR. BMF probably didn't know how much effort.

So that HR is more than the calm daily activity type mentioned before, but still low enough you could get by eating back half of them.

No! I burned more with the wt set at 170 than what it would have been at 244.
The walk wasn't strenuous. Just a normal walk... Talked to a friend the whole time.
My hr is 85-95 normally... Out of shape.

The hrm would have matched the BMF at 629 before changing the wt. Did I do something wrong?
Still only netted 1570.

theNurseNancy

I dont get it. Does that mean I'm burning more or less calories than my HRM says I am? I got an age of 35 according to your formula and I'm 25.


edit: I know my max HR. I know that helps the accuracy as well.

KristysGonnaGetFit

will be using this later, thanks!

prwthomas

Wow, you're really smart! Thank you for posting!

Cueball55

ump

rene1977

bump

nermal6873

Bump.

SarahSwimmer

bump

Tami113

bump

Angel1066

bump

DonnaLRB

Thanks, I got an FT40 a couple of weeks ago and I need to check this out.

ShannonMpls

bumping so I can find this after I get my bf% from the bodpod!

dasblondie

bump....i def may need help figuring this out

JCGilbert

I need a cuppa cof and some free time to look this over. I have a PolarFT4 and I've been thinking I need to change the settings merely to reflect a few lbs weight loss.

ESP12

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!!!

Earmarked*
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.

heybales

Lighter weight at same HR is burning less calories, so that calorie burn would have been much more at higher weight. So correct you were getting overstated estimate previously. Sounds like a strenuous walk though at that good HR. BMF probably didn't know how much effort.

So that HR is more than the calm daily activity type mentioned before, but still low enough you could get by eating back half of them.

No! I burned more with the wt set at 170 than what it would have been at 244.
The walk wasn't strenuous. Just a normal walk... Talked to a friend the whole time.
My hr is 85-95 normally... Out of shape.

The hrm would have matched the BMF at 629 before changing the wt. Did I do something wrong?
Still only netted 1570.

Oh, I know what direction you said it went, which I was stating was indeed the wrong direction.
Less weight for same level of effort (HR) burns less calories. So my own 9lb difference from 2 months ago to tonight had 13 less calories burned for exactly the same AHR and MHR.

You state above your normal HR for comparison when they matched was 85-95, but when the weight was set lower, you had avg 125 max 145 - much higher level of effort. Even if the weight was less.

And the BMF is still calculating a BMR figure also remember, that's why they asked for the exact same stats. They take an estimated BMR figure, and then tweak it slightly for your avg temp while you sleep. If higher than normal, they say BMR is higher slightly, if less, lower. But they are still starting on shaky foundation, BMR based on age/weight/height, compared to more accurate body composition age/weight/BF%.

heybales

I dont get it. Does that mean I'm burning more or less calories than my HRM says I am? I got an age of 35 according to your formula and I'm 25.

edit: I know my max HR. I know that helps the accuracy as well.

Burning less than it says.

MHR really helps. Because now they know just how much effort your HR is.
If pushing 160, and estimated MHR is 170, you would appear to really be pushing it - really burning up the cal's.
But if MHR is really 200, than that was not nearly as hard an effort for you, not as many cal's.

The BMR part helps a little, 50- over 100 an hour, depending on how much extra or less LBM you have compared to what is expected in the other BMR calc.

So that means, as far as LBM, you have what the avg 35 yr old at your weight/height had in the studies that made the BMR formula the HRM uses.

And then, your MHR may be so much better than the 220-age as to make that difference minor.

shellsie_j

Bump Thanks for posting

tm0623

Bump