Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

1…457910…18

Replies

  • murray292
    murray292 Posts: 32
    bump
  • sycarroll
    sycarroll Posts: 14 Member
    Bump
  • michie27
    michie27 Posts: 421 Member
    bump to read later
  • ElisaMarie82
    ElisaMarie82 Posts: 62
    Thanks for sharing! BUMP! :wink:
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    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?

    You just did!

    To find a topic of interest later, if you have your news feed report topics you responded to, it is now there for finding later.
    And you've just put it into your top 25 My Topics list to find later.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    bump

    @slyder432

    I'd love to know if you can even go low enough in age to make up for your high LBM compared to normal BMR calcs.

    When they did those studies - they didn't include anyone weight lifting.
  • abcdever
    abcdever Posts: 24
    [/quote]
    You just did!

    To find a topic of interest later, if you have your news feed report topics you responded to, it is now there for finding later.
    And you've just put it into your top 25 My Topics list to find later.
    [/quote]

    Great! Thanks so much! P.S. At first all the information you provided was interesting but EXTREMELY overwhelming. Once I took my time and read over it a second time, though, it made a great deal of sense. Followed the steps you gave (which were very simply, by the way) and came up with my new number. Updated my HRM and am looking forward to what I get tomorrow. Thanks so much for the info! I love for my entries into MFP to be as accurate as possible, which is why I purchased the HRM, so I greatly appreciate your post. Keep 'em coming!
  • _Kitten_Kate
    _Kitten_Kate Posts: 520 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?
    Well... not impossible. Because that is the only thing I changed.
    Yes... Polar FT4... did not change age... only weight.
    And... it will only go back to 1921... So... I can't make it 95 years old.

    So?... I put the wt back to my current wt... and change the age to 91... cuz that's as low as it will go.
    Is that correct? .
    It makes my Max HR 130
    Where with changing the wt... and not the age.. my max is 184.

    ???
    Edit to add....
    Re calculated my net cals for the last 7 days... averaged ~2400. Assume the metabolism is back up.. So, changed age to match est BMR... (18 years old!) with HR max of 200.
    We shall see....
  • gogojodee
    gogojodee Posts: 1,243 Member
    BUMP. Getting mine soon. SO this will be helpful.
  • StoryGirl9
    StoryGirl9 Posts: 37
    Okay, so I think I figured this out...
    1 - 1550
    2 - 23.4
    3 - 1624
    4 - 12

    Part 2
    1 -1550
    2 - About 1400

    However, based on the previous, I think I will try and up my NET to around 1600 instead of 1400. So, should I alter the stats in my HRM to put my age as 12?? That is where I got lost.

    I am a very fit female (have done Insanity, P90X and currently doing P90X2), but I have completely stalled in my weight loss (stuck at 5'6" and 168.5 FOREVER - 30 years old). So, based on the calculations AND weight loss plateau, I should go up in NET AND adjust my HRM?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Great! Thanks so much! P.S. At first all the information you provided was interesting but EXTREMELY overwhelming. Once I took my time and read over it a second time, though, it made a great deal of sense. Followed the steps you gave (which were very simply, by the way) and came up with my new number. Updated my HRM and am looking forward to what I get tomorrow. Thanks so much for the info! I love for my entries into MFP to be as accurate as possible, which is why I purchased the HRM, so I greatly appreciate your post. Keep 'em coming!

    Let us know how the submaximal tests go for correcting the max HR.

    No one is reporting in that it killed them, or too easy, or anything. I'm guessing to easy, or waiting until the next workout.
  • ThinkThin85
    ThinkThin85 Posts: 140 Member
    bump
  • Sumo813
    Sumo813 Posts: 566 Member
    Definite bump! And thanks!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Well... not impossible. Because that is the only thing I changed.
    Yes... Polar FT4... did not change age... only weight.
    And... it will only go back to 1921... So... I can't make it 95 years old.

    So?... I put the wt back to my current wt... and change the age to 91... cuz that's as low as it will go.
    Is that correct? .
    It makes my Max HR 130
    Where with changing the wt... and not the age.. my max is 184.

    ???
    Edit to add....
    Re calculated my net cals for the last 7 days... averaged ~2400. Assume the metabolism is back up.. So, changed age to match est BMR... (18 years old!) with HR max of 200.
    We shall see....
    I have a tracking app that every workout is recorded in, and a place to record AHR, MHR, weight, ect.
    I went through every single entry, when the AHR and MHR were close within 2bpm between old and new weights, the calorie count always went down.
    That's the way it works, less weight, less effort, if the HR stays the same.

    So there is something wrong with the HRM.

    Now - MHR has a bigger bearing on calorie count - hence the self test to correct that. That is farther down the post.

    And that calculated figure of MHR on the watch has no bearing on your true MHR, it is merely 220-age - and even more inaccurate for women. So neither past nor present are accurate, unless your true MHR happens to match one of those.
  • kristi_asco
    kristi_asco Posts: 183
    gotta check this out
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Okay, so I think I figured this out...
    1 - 1550
    2 - 23.4
    3 - 1624
    4 - 12

    Part 2
    1 -1550
    2 - About 1400

    However, based on the previous, I think I will try and up my NET to around 1600 instead of 1400. So, should I alter the stats in my HRM to put my age as 12?? That is where I got lost.

    I am a very fit female (have done Insanity, P90X and currently doing P90X2), but I have completely stalled in my weight loss (stuck at 5'6" and 168.5 FOREVER - 30 years old). So, based on the calculations AND weight loss plateau, I should go up in NET AND adjust my HRM?

    For just a bit of difference for one week, I'd use what you'll be at. That way you'll be eating back the exercise calories of the fact you are actually burning more when the metabolism is burning fully. Even if it takes a week to do so.

    Don't forget to test for better MHR - that has bigger bearing on true calorie count.
  • dixiecup19
    dixiecup19 Posts: 50 Member
    bump
  • TrishBH
    TrishBH Posts: 16 Member
    bump
  • Mindmovesbody
    Mindmovesbody Posts: 399 Member
    Bump
  • Russian1
    Russian1 Posts: 21 Member
    bump. I have to figure this out. I have a Polar FT7 and always thought the calorie calcs were off.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    bump. I have to figure this out. I have a Polar FT7 and always thought the calorie calcs were off.

    MHR setting will effect it more, pretty easy test there too.
  • MrsSamB
    MrsSamB Posts: 143 Member
    My numbers:
    Results:

    42.37% (U.S. Navy Circumference Method #1 - men and women)

    33.57% (U.S. Navy Circumference Method #2 - women only)

    25.55% (book by Covert Bailey "Fit or Fat")

    33.8% Average

    with my original info (weight, height, etc) my BMR was 1647.
    With my "new" info using the Covert Bailey, my BMR was 1759 and my age was 5.

    Myfitnesspal has me eating 1200 calories per day. I almost always eat my exercise calories. What should I do. I have not lost weight in about 3 weeks.
  • ElPumaMex
    ElPumaMex Posts: 367 Member
    bump to check later
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    with my original info (weight, height, etc) my BMR was 1647.
    With my "new" info using the Covert Bailey, my BMR was 1759 and my age was 5.

    Myfitnesspal has me eating 1200 calories per day. I almost always eat my exercise calories. What should I do. I have not lost weight in about 3 weeks.

    Well, if you net at 1200 because of the activity level and weight loss goal you selected, than that is actually your BMR.
    It could potentially be 1759 because of excellent lean body mass, but it can't be because it hasn't gotten the energy it needs, so it has slowed down.

    So actually, you probably have the metabolism of someone your height/weight that is over 90 yrs old, because that is a huge difference. So you would probably have to see what weight that 90 yr old woman would have to be to match 1200 BMR.

    But may I suggest not only doing that so you have more accurate calorie burn estimate, do the MHR test too, because changing to 90 will mess up the calculated MHR of 220-age, and yours is probably better than that.

    And then for getting out of your stall, read this.
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method
  • MrsSamB
    MrsSamB Posts: 143 Member
    When I put the age in as 90, the BMR comes up as 1662. And, you're correct, I set up mfp so that I would "lose" 2 lbs/per week that's why I was at 1200 calories. When I change the settings to lose 1 lb./week, exercising 4x/week my calorie allowance goes up to 1660.

    But for my Polar, should I change the age to 90 or should I change the age to 5?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    When I put the age in as 90, the BMR comes up as 1662. And, you're correct, I set up mfp so that I would "lose" 2 lbs/per week that's why I was at 1200 calories. When I change the settings to lose 1 lb./week, exercising 4x/week my calorie allowance goes up to 1660.

    But for my Polar, should I change the age to 90 or should I change the age to 5?

    If you are going to eat more and your exercise calories, I'd set to 5.

    Suggest only increasing by 200 per day for a week, and then another 200, ect.

    You will need to do the max HR step test to get the MHR set correctly, as soon as you change the age, it changes the MHR to 220-age, which will really be wrong now!
    And that effects calorie estimate more.
  • Michellerawrrr
    Michellerawrrr Posts: 310 Member
    Bump
  • Aureilie
    Aureilie Posts: 213 Member
    Bump!
  • Anayalata
    Anayalata Posts: 391 Member
    So, I entered my calculations.

    It gave me 9.75% body fat. I'm 22 years old, Male, 69 inches tall, 140 lbs.

    According to your data, I have the BMR of a 31~32 year old.

    This is rather detrimental to my already low self-esteem lol
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    So, I entered my calculations.

    It gave me 9.75% body fat. I'm 22 years old, Male, 69 inches tall, 140 lbs.

    According to your data, I have the BMR of a 31~32 year old.

    This is rather detrimental to my already low self-esteem lol

    Ahh, trying to gain weight then! Muscle weight that is. Excellent loss already, wow.

    Well, that means your LBM is slightly below avg for your age/height/weight - so keep lifting! Doing the right thing.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories