Forget wearing the HRM all day if purpose is for estimating calorie burn for accurate TDEE.
If curious about avg hr and what it does - then that might be useful if you can look at graph of whole day movement.

But the formula for getting calories from HR is ONLY valid in the aerobic exercise HR zone, where you HR is actually pumping at certain speeds to supply the required oxygen to support oxidizing fat and carbs as energy source.

Above anaerobic threshold lifting and intervals, and below aerobic exercise zone daily life - that formula doesn't apply.

Normally you'll get inflated calorie burn on either end. And if not steady-state same HR for 2-4 min, even in the correct zone - more inflation.

So don't read much in to wearing it all day, except a chance to see stats.
But don't include calorie burn in there as having any accuracy.

If it happens to match a guessed rough TDEE level from 5 - then I'd suggest wrong level was picked.

You can read through the start of this Polar funded study to see all the references to the facts as I mentioned above.
Link to study on this page.
www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

Nope.

And you can easily fool them for calorie burn even for their intended purpose - steady-state HR in aerobic exercise.

If it's hot and your body is attempting to help cool by pushing blood faster for cooling effect against skin - higher HR NOT related to working harder - ie, not more calorie burn.
If you are dehydrated and heart must beat more to push the thicker blood to get the needed oxygen to where it's needed - higher HR NOT related to working the muscles more or burning more fuel.
If you work out at steady pace on treadmill for long enough you'll get HR drift, a slow rising of the HR even though the work load is exactly the same burning the same calories - just because your body is becoming stressed from the exercise.

There is never a situation where the HR is lower than needed - it's always "inflated" for what is really required, higher than it truly needs to be.

Before your next kick boxing class, stand there like you would if you just had a bout with the bag and had your rest before next one.
What is the HR required to supply the oxygen for the workload of standing there?
Now do a session with the bag or whatever.
Now stand again, what does the HR start at, and what does it finally drop to, before you start another session?
Has your workload of standing there changed?
After your last session, stand there and see how long it takes to get down to the actual HR required for the workload of standing there, based on original HR. You can stop at 5 min if it doesn't reach it in that time.

HRM as a tool was designed for 1 thing - monitor your heart rate.

The calorie thing was added later due to consumer survey's (thank's Polar) that indicated people want that over anything - so they took out many features of decent HRM (rather hid them), and gave calorie burn instead - and sold tons. So others jumped on the bandwagon for sales.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

3furballs wrote: »

Do you think this would be more accurate?

http://dailyfitnessresource.blogspot.ca/2012/10/as-promised-here-are-more-accurate-ways.html

That's merely describing how you get the results the TDEE tables use.

Order of potential accuracy.

One of those rough 5 level TDEE tables based on 1919 study.

4 - This which still uses those tables but at least gets the time right - http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1018770-better-rough-tdee-estimate-than-5-level-chart

3 - This which at least incorporates daily and exercise activity together, and distinguishes different levels/types of each - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1G7FgNzPq3v5WMjDtH0n93LXSMRY_hjmzNTMJb3aZSxM/edit?usp=sharing

2 - A daily activity tracker calibrated and used correctly - Some studies put it at 85% accuracy for the day, exercise depends on what it is.

1 - And then some methods you'll never get done unless part of a research study.

I wouldn't even wait 2 weeks at 1900 - too slow increases - you did the major increases already that cause more glucose and water to be stored in the muscle - so that water weight gain is done if any happened without dropping stress water.

You mentioned you were at 1500 for 3 weeks - but not what you were at prior, I'm guessing not logged accurately but slow weight increase showing more than TDEE?

I'd say 1 week at 2000.

Then the 2 week 250 test.
Eat 2250 daily for 2 weeks.
If 2000 is truly potential TDEE - you will gain 1 lb slowly over the entire time (depending on TOM obviously, so perhaps eat 2000 until timing is right).
Doing weights - won't even be fat weight.

If no gain - your body sped up even more and TDEE was higher.
If more or faster - you still had slightly depleted glucose stores that finally topped off and TDEE is higher. Because if truly eating at TDEE and valid weigh-in day to minimize water weight fluctuations - there should be no glucose stores to top-off.

Oh, 2300 estimated TDEE - not even there yet to attempt the 2 week 250 test.

As Diva mentioned - always do the math.

Let's pretend the 1900 was true potential TDEE, and so you spent some days eating 100 more than that.

It would take 35 days to slowly put on 1 whole lb.
Actually longer. That 3500 calories per lb of fat is when it's burned as energy source.
When gaining, it actually takes more because some energy is used to process the food and the excess calories for storage as fat.

I've learned the hard way that any gain on the scale is most likely water weight, especially if you had something high in sodium.