Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

tayloni1

Bump

mrstweedle1

bump for when i get my HRM

gablondie

bump

stephreed11

Just had a quick question-
I just experimented with this & changed my age from 24 to my new "calculated age", 32. My HRM said I burned 9 more cals with this particular exercise than I did when my age was set to 24. Does this sound right? Just want to make sure I have everything set up correctly & burning 9 more cals is really the only difference with this new method...
Thanks!

heybales

Just had a quick question-
I just experimented with this & changed my age from 24 to my new "calculated age", 32. My HRM said I burned 9 more cals with this particular exercise than I did when my age was set to 24. Does this sound right? Just want to make sure I have everything set up correctly & burning 9 more cals is really the only difference with this new method...
Thanks!

Was your AHR and MHR and time exactly the same? Did you set the max HR stat back to what it was or better to do the test in the post?
MHR setting has a bigger bearing on calories burned the BMR.
So even if you hit the exact same AHR and MHR and time, if the HRM calculated max HR, it would now be lower, and with lower max HR, it will appear you pushed harder than last time.

You should have burned less actually, having biologically slower metabolism for someone your age/height/weight.

Larry0445

Bump

goforthd5

bump

chubby_checkers

I'll look into this when my brain is functioning properly. Thanks.

projectconsistency

Thanks for posting the information. It's great to see you're answering everyone's questions. I put in my info and was surprised to see 27.6% body fat (Covert Bailey). I weigh over 200 pounds and feel pretty fat, so it's hard to believe my body fat much lower than I thought it would be. I'm taller, and I run marathons and work out a lot, but I still feel pretty fat. Is it safe to use the information I got from the calculators to help my Polar better calculate calories burned? I got the Polar to train by heart rate, but after reading your post I want to use it to get a more accurate measure of my calorie burn! Thanks.

blondiekat230

bump

heybales

Thanks for posting the information. It's great to see you're answering everyone's questions. I put in my info and was surprised to see 27.6% body fat (Covert Bailey). I weigh over 200 pounds and feel pretty fat, so it's hard to believe my body fat much lower than I thought it would be. I'm taller, and I run marathons and work out a lot, but I still feel pretty fat. Is it safe to use the information I got from the calculators to help my Polar better calculate calories burned? I got the Polar to train by heart rate, but after reading your post I want to use it to get a more accurate measure of my calorie burn! Thanks.

Indeed could. A bigger factor for you though will be the max HR setting. Since you've been exercising, yours is as high as it'll be, and you could get that stat right too.

pinkita

bump, and thanks for posting

SassyJuliana

bump

projectconsistency

Thanks for posting the information. It's great to see you're answering everyone's questions. I put in my info and was surprised to see 27.6% body fat (Covert Bailey). I weigh over 200 pounds and feel pretty fat, so it's hard to believe my body fat much lower than I thought it would be. I'm taller, and I run marathons and work out a lot, but I still feel pretty fat. Is it safe to use the information I got from the calculators to help my Polar better calculate calories burned? I got the Polar to train by heart rate, but after reading your post I want to use it to get a more accurate measure of my calorie burn! Thanks.

Indeed could. A bigger factor for you though will be the max HR setting. Since you've been exercising, yours is as high as it'll be, and you could get that stat right too.

Thank you for the quick response! I can't wait to adjust my Polar in the morning.

stephreed11

Just had a quick question-
I just experimented with this & changed my age from 24 to my new "calculated age", 32. My HRM said I burned 9 more cals with this particular exercise than I did when my age was set to 24. Does this sound right? Just want to make sure I have everything set up correctly & burning 9 more cals is really the only difference with this new method...
Thanks!

Was your AHR and MHR and time exactly the same? Did you set the max HR stat back to what it was or better to do the test in the post?
MHR setting has a bigger bearing on calories burned the BMR.
So even if you hit the exact same AHR and MHR and time, if the HRM calculated max HR, it would now be lower, and with lower max HR, it will appear you pushed harder than last time.

You should have burned less actually, having biologically slower metabolism for someone your age/height/weight.

I actually didn't do anything with the HR...just changed my age. So I need to do both tests to find a different HR? I'm sorry if I seem slow, I just get confused with all of this! lol. Thanks for helping me!

heybales

Just had a quick question-
I just experimented with this & changed my age from 24 to my new "calculated age", 32. My HRM said I burned 9 more cals with this particular exercise than I did when my age was set to 24. Does this sound right? Just want to make sure I have everything set up correctly & burning 9 more cals is really the only difference with this new method...
Thanks!

Was your AHR and MHR and time exactly the same? Did you set the max HR stat back to what it was or better to do the test in the post?
MHR setting has a bigger bearing on calories burned the BMR.
So even if you hit the exact same AHR and MHR and time, if the HRM calculated max HR, it would now be lower, and with lower max HR, it will appear you pushed harder than last time.

You should have burned less actually, having biologically slower metabolism for someone your age/height/weight.

I actually didn't do anything with the HR...just changed my age. So I need to do both tests to find a different HR? I'm sorry if I seem slow, I just get confused with all of this! lol. Thanks for helping me!

Ya, the Polar is pretty good about changing the stat under personal settings for max HR, same page as the age, as soon as you enter a new age.

Yours is the big extreme I've seen, going up to 90 yrs old means the max HR will be calculated at 130. So if you were to avg 150, it would appear to the Polar you were really pushing it to the max.
And you would get a huge calorie burn for that, despite having metabolism entered for someone much older.

And even when everything is setup correctly, it's based on your avg HR and highest HR reached during the workout, compared to what your max HR is.

hanniejong

BUMP

Tenar13

bump

byHISstrength

Bump

mmklinemm

Thanks! Saving this for when I finally get my FT4.

Maurice1966

Bump

gablondie

So I did the test for the MHR. I came up with 221. That seems awful high to me. I had 156 avg hr and I added 65 to it for "average". My HRM has it set at 186 right now.

heybales

So I did the test for the MHR. I came up with 221. That seems awful high to me. I had 156 avg hr and I added 65 to it for "average". My HRM has it set at 186 right now.

Was that avg for the last min, or the whole test? Which actually I guess if for the whole test, would have been lower than just the last min.

All warmed up too?

Followed a rest day? If yesterday was hard, system not recovered so it'll appear higher than expected.

Because that is a tad high. Wouldn't be surprised though if you've seen 186 or higher before, without feeling like you were dying at the moment.

mckant

I'm definitely going to try this. Thanks!

gablondie

So I did the test for the MHR. I came up with 221. That seems awful high to me. I had 156 avg hr and I added 65 to it for "average". My HRM has it set at 186 right now.

Was that avg for the last min, or the whole test? Which actually I guess if for the whole test, would have been lower than just the last min.

All warmed up too?

Followed a rest day? If yesterday was hard, system not recovered so it'll appear higher than expected.

Because that is a tad high. Wouldn't be surprised though if you've seen 186 or higher before, without feeling like you were dying at the moment.

That was just the last minute.
I had done 30 mins on the elliptical...........maybe I shouldn't have. Didn't think about that. I saw that it wanted you to warm up 10 -15 mins before.
No, yesterday was pretty intense.
I've noticed that I tend to always end up in zone 2 and 3 with my watch telling me to take it easy...............yet I don't feel like I"m working *that hard. So I went ahead and adjusted my age. I am 34, after doing the calcs it had me at 24( woo hoo) and it upped my MHR to 196. So I will stick with that for now and see how I feel.

rmk20togo

Here are my numbers:

Navy Women Only
BF 28.7
BRM 1525
Age 32

Covert Bailey
BF 23.25
BMR 1613
Age 13 :noway:

If I use the average I get:
BF 25.98%
BMR 1569
Age 30

SHUT THE FRONT DOOR!!!!! I went today for a metabolism test and hydrostatic body fat test and ........wait for it..........my BMR was 1613 exactly (please refer to :noway: above). MFP calculates it at 1450'ish.

1613 x 1.2 (desk job) + 600 avg daily burn - 250 (-.5#) = 2285 to lose .5# per week. My average intake for the month of March was 1800 gross and I lost nothing!!! Interestingly, fat2fit recommends 2072-2306. So, $100 later, I'm going to take all the free advice here and on fat2fit and bump up my calories again. So far I've maintained on averages of 1400-1800, let's see what happens at 2200.

Haybales now that I know my accurate BMR is 1613 and, using your calculator that makes me 13 years old, does that mean my HRM has been reading high or low? I'm going to reset it tonight.

Sadly, body fat was 30%.....:explode.....and to get to the 20% I'd love to see, I have to lose 20# which will make for one wrinkly 51 year old.

gablondie

That's good to know that the BMR was so exact! Cool.

laughlovelive17

Thanks so much for the info! I'll be recalculating!

heybales

Here are my numbers:

Navy Women Only
BF 28.7
BRM 1525
Age 32

Covert Bailey
BF 23.25
BMR 1613
Age 13 :noway:

If I use the average I get:
BF 25.98%
BMR 1569
Age 30

SHUT THE FRONT DOOR!!!!! I went today for a metabolism test and hydrostatic body fat test and ........wait for it..........my BMR was 1613 exactly (please refer to :noway: above). MFP calculates it at 1450'ish.

1613 x 1.2 (desk job) + 600 avg daily burn - 250 (-.5#) = 2285 to lose .5# per week. My average intake for the month of March was 1800 gross and I lost nothing!!! Interestingly, fat2fit recommends 2072-2306. So, $100 later, I'm going to take all the free advice here and on fat2fit and bump up my calories again. So far I've maintained on averages of 1400-1800, let's see what happens at 2200.

Haybales now that I know my accurate BMR is 1613 and, using your calculator that makes me 13 years old, does that mean my HRM has been reading high or low? I'm going to reset it tonight.

Sadly, body fat was 30%.....:explode.....and to get to the 20% I'd love to see, I have to lose 20# which will make for one wrinkly 51 year old.

So you have much better real BMR than HRM was aware of, it was underestimating the burns.

Now, as soon as you change the age, it will recalc your max HR, which of course may have been off anyway, but really will be now.

So I'd do that Max HR test, since that has a bigger bearing on calorie burn.

NekaLee

*saving for later*