Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

i just can't understand the purpose of this. and i'm annoyed that polar doesn't have a more accurate way to measure calories. how hard would it be to include BF in the user information? i have a pretty good idea what my BF is because i got it tested in a body pod. although it was a year ago and i was 12 lbs lighter, i think it's probably a good number to use.

please confirm i am correct in this:

BF BMR: 1381

I had to adjust the age up to 91 (I'm 40) and the height down to 60 inches (i'm 64 inches) to get the number to work out. So now I enter this new age and height in my polar FT60?

and what is the result of all this? does this adjust the HR zones so that my max HR is less that it currently is (180)? will it show me burning more or less calories?

any feedback would be greatly appreciated. thanks

btw - i adjusted height and age. i have a polar FT60. not sure if that is considered one of the "nicer' ones but i saw where you said that the age calc is sometimes used for other things.

please advise.

Polar? Try any HRM maker. And the fault is the people buying them wanting it to do so actually.

There is a lose correlation between HR and calorie burn if your workout is right, the problem is asking for something that isn't possible.

You are correct though, they could include BF% for better attempt at accurate estimate. Make it an option, if not entered, use BMI and BMR as normal.

So that's what you are trying to obtain, for their results to end up with what a better BMR estimate using BF% results in.
But you have to tweak what they make available.

You would definitely want to adjust your HRmax back where it should be, because yes, the HRM is doing 220-age calc and assuming that is correct HRmax, obviously at this point not anywhere near correct, and actually 220-age probably isn't either.
As a woman, you have better odds of it being more than 10 bpm off that calc.

The end result of this is you have less Lean Body Mass than avg person your age, weight, height.
As such, your BMR is less.
As such, you burn more calories at equal HR compared to before. For instance, now it'll think it's a 90 yr old putting forth that effort, more calorie burn compared to before.

Of course, as the first topic message points out, HRmax is more important than this value.
So confirm you adjust it in personal stats while in there.
When that is adjusted, your HR zones will remain the same.

Since the age calc on some is used for other things, you could see how much height to adjust to end up with the same BMR number. Sounds like you'd have to be even shorter of course, shorter is smaller BMR. Might make it easier though.

And then every 5lbs lost, redo the bodyfat% estimate, see if any adjustment needed.

So this mean that i have to change my fitibt profile too in order to get the best result right?
I'm so depressed. I have 24.5% of bodyfat, i am a 22yrs with 36yrs metabolism. This is killing me inside.
By the way, can u suggest a HRM (my budget is around 100$) that can count calorie burn during strength training and aerobic exercise?
P.S. Thank you for posting this very useful information.

Garmin FR60.
Right at $100 retail if you don't get the optional footpod right then. That would allow distance tracking, close to GPS, when that matters. Also get optional bike kit if desired.
Before that, good 'ole HRM with some great features to it.

And 24% bodyfat is really very good, that's within healthy range.

And true, the FitBit has those same stats, and calculates your BMR based on age, weight, height, and uses that for determining how many calories you burn each day.
But with bodyfat% estimate, you know what a more accurate BMR estimate is based on weight, BF%.
So that would be correct for correcting it.

Here is another method that is just as valid.
Instead of adjusting the age to reach the same BMR figure, adjust the height. Just means you are shorter than you really are right now.
That should be easier to adjust on the FitBit site.

Thank you for replying
So, the Garmin FR60 HRM can also calculate calorie from strength training too right?
I really want to get the number as accurate as possible because i'm about to start the metabolism reset soon.

Actually, on further research beyond the manual, it does not.

https://support.garmin.com/support/searchSupport/case.faces?caseId={bbfb6b70-4baf-11de-f35c-000000000000}

It uses the same Athlete Profile the others use, but they use it in their own calculations. Still more accurate than similar priced Polars because of including VO2max estimate, which is what that profile selection does.

https://support.garmin.com/support/searchSupport/case.faces?caseId={d47f64e0-a30b-11de-ea2e-000000000000}

It'll be more than $100 if you want that level of accuracy then.

The Polar FT80 with strength training functions included is $200 on Amazon. They don't claim it's calorie burn is correct for the strength training though, maybe it was a more expensive model that did that.
From comments of others - perhaps not.
http://forum.polar.fi/showthread.php?p=63681

The Garmin FR110 appears to be around $144 and would be. It also comes with GPS built in if useful. Always can disable though.
http://www.firstbeat.fi/consumers/heart-rate-monitors/firstbeat-intelligence-in-heart-rate-monitors#energyexpenditure

Okay, would somebody mind checking to see if I did this right? Because my new Polar FT7 seems to be calculating REALLY high:

Stats: Female, 39 years old, 5'3", 157 pounds 38% body fat (according to my trainer's Omron machine-Covert Bailey was a full 10 percentage points lower at 28%?????? )

I'm aiming for eating 1650 calories per day, in the EM2WL style, though sometimes I'm a little under that. I'm not doing a lot of cardio work right now, but I am "lifting heavy" 3 times per week.

My BMR without the body fat %: 1444

My BMR with the body fat of 38%(Omron): 1326

Adjusted age to 64 to get the other BMR

So if this is right, do I change my birth year on the Polar to be born in 1947? Or should I have used the other body fat number? Thanks!

P.S. During my weight-lifting session the other day, it said that I had burned 400 calories for the hour. In my 1.6ish mile walk yesterday, it said, 287, my Fitbit said 197.

Very strange, this topic never showed up with new responses to it. Thanks MFP glitches.

You would indeed change to 1947, so biologically older as far as LBM is concerned - for now, I know you are lifting.

But, the biggest factor to that watch and calorie burn estimate - HRmax. I'd suggest skipping this BMR adjustment since it is so close.

Use that spreadsheet, HRM tab, for some links on estimating it better, or self-testing it too.

Oh, forget using it for weight lifting. HRM's are only valid for steady-state aerobic activity.
Not daily activity below 90 bpm, not anaerobic activity like weight lifting or hard intervals above say 150-160.
Probably 1/3 to 1/4 whatever the HRM says for weight lifting. I've actually found MFP database to be very correct on that. I have a HRM that does measure anaerobic correctly, and always within 25 cals, though I don't wear it anymore.

Good news, that HRM tab, once you entered in your stats at top, calculated your VO2max that more expensive Polars would use, and estimated/tested your HRmax and entered that, will have your personalized calorie burn at the very bottom, based on a study funded by Polar actually.