Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

1…34689…18

Replies

  • KacieK1
    KacieK1 Posts: 15 Member
    My HRM age has decreased by 6 years. I also adjusted my weight as it was over by 20 lbs. Thanks for the post.
  • rolyprince
    rolyprince Posts: 49 Member
    confused by all the numbers!! Bumping anyway to see if it makes it any clearer later. :-)
  • klt1030
    klt1030 Posts: 82 Member
    Read later :)
  • Shayztar
    Shayztar Posts: 415 Member

    So lets say 1 hr workout at medium intensity.
    23.4% BF, LBM of avg 13 yr old at same height/weight - 403.
    avg LBM of age/height/weight - 359.
    lowered BMR of 94 yr old same height/weight - 309.

    So true, only about 50 cal difference between what watch was guessing, and worst case, or best case, scenario.

    Thank you for being so forthcoming. I appreciate it. I was very frustrated to hear I was wrong again, but if it's a case of about 50 cals best or worst case, then I can handle that kind of inaccuracy. I DO understand that there are people who are very interested in being as exact as possible, and that's important for them. For me, I can give or take a couple hundred calories per day. I base my calorie intake on my BMR and TDEE and I also breast feed a 1 year old. 50-100 calories discrepancy in my HRM might not be great, but it's definately not worth doing an obscene amount of math for it, especially when my BF habits with my son can compensate for that at any point!



    14839892.png
  • lacroyx
    lacroyx Posts: 5,754 Member
    :sad: my head hurts...... sooo according to this I am 83 in age. :cry:
  • _Kitten_Kate
    _Kitten_Kate Posts: 520 Member
    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%.

    No... my normal *resting* heart rate is around 80-95bpm.
    With the wt set previously at 244-250... and walking the same route my HR was usually about avg123-max145bpm.
    So, with a lighter wt that was entered(170) and the same walk and BPM... it says I burned more.
    Because before...with the same type of exercise the HRM and BMF would have matched. This time the HRM was higher... by almost 18 cals.

    So, what have I done wrong? Should I change the age instead of wt?
    Because my results and what you are saying is not matching up.
  • HBinOC
    HBinOC Posts: 78 Member
    Bump
  • Larry0445
    Larry0445 Posts: 204 Member
    bump
  • StartingAnewDay
    StartingAnewDay Posts: 319 Member
    I read this about 7 times and my brain is still like :huh: .. I think I need absolute quiet, massive amounts of paper, a calculator and a drink in hand.. bumping til i get home and have all those things.
  • estrellita26
    estrellita26 Posts: 34 Member
    bump..
  • winonajosephine
    winonajosephine Posts: 122 Member
    bump for laterz
  • beckajw
    beckajw Posts: 1,728 Member
    bump
  • StartingAnewDay
    StartingAnewDay Posts: 319 Member
    I just figured it out and now I'm wondering.. Could I use this as a defense to get early retirement?? :sad:
  • charming72
    charming72 Posts: 37 Member
    Bump
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Thank you for being so forthcoming. I appreciate it. I was very frustrated to hear I was wrong again, but if it's a case of about 50 cals best or worst case, then I can handle that kind of inaccuracy. I DO understand that there are people who are very interested in being as exact as possible, and that's important for them. For me, I can give or take a couple hundred calories per day. I base my calorie intake on my BMR and TDEE and I also breast feed a 1 year old. 50-100 calories discrepancy in my HRM might not be great, but it's definately not worth doing an obscene amount of math for it, especially when my BF habits with my son can compensate for that at any point!

    Very true, MHR is bigger deal, VO2max after that, down the list is BMR estimate. Guess I should have put in other order.

    I was hoping the MHR and VO2max tests would be of just as much interest in general, this was just the easy change.

    Perhaps the other will come later for many.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    No... my normal *resting* heart rate is around 80-95bpm.
    With the wt set previously at 244-250... and walking the same route my HR was usually about avg123-max145bpm.
    So, with a lighter wt that was entered(170) and the same walk and BPM... it says I burned more.
    Because before...with the same type of exercise the HRM and BMF would have matched. This time the HRM was higher... by almost 18 cals.

    So, what have I done wrong? Should I change the age instead of wt?
    Because my results and what you are saying is not matching up.

    Ahhh, RHR is 80-95.

    Ya, impossible that it would report more calories at less weight. That's why the best method is age. But weight still goes only 1 direction if it is less, so I bet something else got changed.

    Is this a Polar? Didn't change age?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I just figured it out and now I'm wondering.. Could I use this as a defense to get early retirement?? :sad:

    When my chiro years ago said I had the back of a 60 yr old, I asked the same thing, senior cofffee at McD's, and retirement.
  • niota56
    niota56 Posts: 5 Member
    bump for later
  • abcdever
    abcdever Posts: 24
    Okay, obviously a very STUPID question but I'm new to MFP so I have to ask. What does it mean to "bump" and how do you do it?
  • Specialkayrina
    Specialkayrina Posts: 242 Member
    BUMP
  • liftandcycle
    liftandcycle Posts: 209
    bump
  • slyder432
    slyder432 Posts: 475 Member
    bump
  • lisalis626
    lisalis626 Posts: 19 Member
    <3 my Polar. Bumping for later!
  • tageekly
    tageekly Posts: 3,755 Member
    Bumpity.
  • GibsonDarlin
    GibsonDarlin Posts: 202 Member
    Thank you - I got a Polar FT60 in Jan and my calorie burn is sooo low , and my weight loss has slowed and had me wondering what is wrong with it or me... I'm busting *kitten* working out - and still nothing.
    I m going to give your post a try in setting this HRM better!
  • celticmuse
    celticmuse Posts: 492 Member
    Bump
  • lynette111
    lynette111 Posts: 77 Member
    Needing to check this out later after work. Thanks!
  • iamMaLisa
    iamMaLisa Posts: 278 Member
    bump:ohwell: guess i'll figure this one out later
  • Fitnthin101
    Fitnthin101 Posts: 25 Member
    Bumping for Later
  • Phestr
    Phestr Posts: 37
    Saving for later

Categories