Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

1…1213141618

Replies

  • AndreaL0918
    AndreaL0918 Posts: 47 Member
    bump, I'm looking at getting the FT7 adventually, want to read for later!
  • yecatsml
    yecatsml Posts: 180 Member
    Just to make sure I have this right - my Polar FT40 asks for BF input as well as age, height and weight so I still want to change it?

    Age 41
    Height 64"
    Weight 149
    BF measured by BodPod 7/21 23.5%

    BMR - 1405
    BF - 24.5 using CB (nice that it is pretty darn accurate!)
    BMR After BF input - 1482

    I can't tell if the website is broken/down as I change the age and nothing happens. I tried refreshing, clearing cache, etc. Anyway, it looks like 24 is the age I need to enter into the HRM instead of 41? It has been giving me what I think are low burn numbers - about 1/2 of what MFP and others show. (5.25 mi walk at 4mph consistently for 300 cal)

    Well, I didn't know that model asked for BF% - nope, use that, and VO2max for best accuracy from other thread that is already best bet.

    Change of age or height was merely to get around HRM's that don't let you change the other stats.
    You are so close anyway, won't make much of a difference.

    You are correct on that BMR site. When using the more accurate BMR based on bodyfat%, only weight matters, not age or anything else. The study on that BMR calc found age didn't matter. LBM just takes so much energy to run metabolism. Unless you are highly efficient cardiovascularly, or massively out of shape.

    Of course, that BMR calc is also deflated for over fat, because fat does require some energy use, but it isn't used in the calc.

    My mistake - it DOES NOT ask for BF input - for some reason I really thought I put it in when I set it up!

    So it looks like I need to put in an age of 24 to get 1484 as my BMR for the HRM (or would I use 25 which is 1480 - neither match, not sure if I should go high or low) - correct?
  • sakisus
    sakisus Posts: 13
    bump
  • cnphel0
    cnphel0 Posts: 45 Member
    Bump for later!
  • kemmy45
    kemmy45 Posts: 59
    Bump
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    My mistake - it DOES NOT ask for BF input - for some reason I really thought I put it in when I set it up!

    So it looks like I need to put in an age of 24 to get 1484 as my BMR for the HRM (or would I use 25 which is 1480 - neither match, not sure if I should go high or low) - correct?

    You don't have enough of an estimated BMR difference to worry about from those other stats.

    Your HRmax stat will have a much bigger bearing on attempted accuracy, getting that within 5 bpm.

    I'd do the 1 mile test or step test for better estimate of that stat.

    http://doctorholmes.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/determine-your-maximum-heart-rate-with-the-step-test/

    http://doctorholmes.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/determine-your-mhr-with-a-1-mile-walking-test/
  • imagineyes
    imagineyes Posts: 13 Member
    Doesn't the polar watch just give you a gross estimate?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Doesn't the polar watch just give you a gross estimate?

    Correct, all HRM's give gross, not net, estimates.
  • imagineyes
    imagineyes Posts: 13 Member
    So if I do the the BF% calculator thing, type in my 'new' age it will still show gross not net right?

    I tried and without the BF% it said my BMR was 1741 with the BF% it said 1785. And now I am 15 instead of 24..
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    So if I do the the BF% calculator thing, type in my 'new' age it will still show gross not net right?

    I tried and without the BF% it said my BMR was 1741 with the BF% it said 1785. And now I am 15 instead of 24..

    Oh yeah, that's too close to worry about. The variations there will be wiped out by other differences that cause inaccuracies.

    But yes, it'll always be gross.
  • RikanSoulja
    RikanSoulja Posts: 463 Member
    Bump
  • Pspetal
    Pspetal Posts: 426 Member
    bump for tomorrow
  • Ang5669
    Ang5669 Posts: 14 Member
    bump
  • phizzylizzy
    phizzylizzy Posts: 94 Member
    bump
  • schaapj2
    schaapj2 Posts: 320 Member
    bump for later
  • ballerina454
    ballerina454 Posts: 73 Member
    Bump I really need to read this tomorrow when I am more rested.
  • imma_rosta
    imma_rosta Posts: 30 Member
    bump
  • Losing2Live69
    Losing2Live69 Posts: 743 Member
    This was way too long and complicated you lost me after the first couple thousand words....
  • Lainnee
    Lainnee Posts: 61 Member
    Bump
  • omgdinosaurs
    omgdinosaurs Posts: 32
    Thank you for the info! Bump! :]
  • Casey45
    Casey45 Posts: 160 Member
    was just thinking about this topic today since I'm in the market for a new one.
  • jacqui1612
    jacqui1612 Posts: 128 Member
    bump
  • daylily2005
    daylily2005 Posts: 203 Member
    Interesting. Bump!
  • Chipmunk222
    Chipmunk222 Posts: 240 Member
    bump
  • ShyFeather
    ShyFeather Posts: 138 Member
    I'm planning on ordering a HRM soon so I just want to see if I got this right.

    Age: 23
    Height: 66"
    Weight: 163
    BMR: 1559

    CB Body Fat%: 20.7%
    New BMR: 1639

    So then I would have to set it to 6 years old... That seems crazy. How can they sell something that is that inaccurate?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I'm planning on ordering a HRM soon so I just want to see if I got this right.

    Age: 23
    Height: 66"
    Weight: 163
    BMR: 1559

    CB Body Fat%: 20.7%
    New BMR: 1639

    So then I would have to set it to 6 years old... That seems crazy. How can they sell something that is that inaccurate?

    Because it's intended purpose was to monitory HR, desire to know calorie burns was much later.

    Since this is about the easiest thing to use outside gas masks measuring your O2 usage, you try to make correlations that are really pretty lose.

    If they wanted to they could have you input your BF% too - but how many people would look measure to find out, or accept a default? The default at healthy weight is probably pretty close, overweight, could vary greatly, as you have discovered.

    You have more lean body mass for someone your age, weight, height than avg - great news.

    Now, that difference in BMR is not really that great, this is bigger deal to the folks with 200-300 difference.
    But it does show you are biologically younger!

    For easier thing to change, you can also adjust the height in the same way as age to end up with the same BMR figure.
    Because some of the nicer HRM's do use age for other calc's, so adjusting it is not good. Height would be better.

    You are about to be taller!
  • lewis350
    lewis350 Posts: 53
    Bump for later
  • banner6
    banner6 Posts: 25 Member
    bump
  • Fairieluv77
    Fairieluv77 Posts: 95
    Bump
  • JPenny12
    JPenny12 Posts: 47 Member
    bump for later

Categories