Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

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

KacieK1

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

confused by all the numbers!! Bumping anyway to see if it makes it any clearer later. :-)

klt1030

Read later

Shayztar

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!

lacroyx

:sad: my head hurts...... sooo according to this I am 83 in age.

_Kitten_Kate

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

Bump

Larry0445

bump

StartingAnewDay

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

bump..