Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

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

I'm 51 years old. I do work out A LOT and, except for 15 extra pounds, I'm in good shape for my age, but holy cow - 23.25% BF.

So, my HRM thinks I'm 165#, 5'6" and 51 right now. Does this the calories burned reading is actually low or high?

I can barely balance my checkbook and this calculation made my head hurt. In the 50 days I been using MFP, I've only netted over the above calculated BMR on 5 days. I may have to take a nap before I try the step two calculations.

LOVE THIS POST!

Don't you want the Lean Body Mass of an avg 13 yr old girl at your weight/height? LOL.

But really, if you have less BF%, that means you have more LBM. And more LBM than the HRM is estimating.

So HRM thinks your BMR is 1436, but your BMR based on more accurate LBM than avg lady at your height/weight, is 1613 potentially.
So that means you could be burning more calories than HRM is telling you.

Now, I say potentially and could be, because of your comment always netting below above BMR figure. So it really couldn't be that high, likely could though, if you NET'd a tad more.

So actually, the second method is even easier now that you know you are NETting below your potential BMR.

Get your avg NET figure, and adjust the age in the BMR calc without BF stat, so you know the avg age of someone with your current BMR.
So in this case, again HRM thinks BMR is 1436 and basing calorie calc on that, but you really NET at say 1300, or shudder, 1200. So with slower metabolism comes slower burns on everything. So you are actually burning less than HRM is telling you.

By adjusting those amounts, you can get it better in line.
So pretend you do net 1300.
So the avg lady at your height/weight with a BMR that low would be, .... ready ..... 80 yrs old.

Now, after a week, you'll discover with less calorie burn really going on but you were really eating back more exercise calories previously, that your NET really wasn't at 1300, say it was really 1400.

I'd suggest using that as a basis to NET up to your potential BMR, and enjoy the greater calorie burn that comes with all activity.
But then again, many want to do the weight loss journey slowly with slower metabolism.

Huh, metabolism and calorie burn of 13 yr old girl with your LBM, or avg 80 yr woman with your metabolism?
Don't we always wish we could eat like we did when we were kids, or had the metabolism from back then?