Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

13567…18

Replies

  • TheMiddlePath
    TheMiddlePath Posts: 230 Member
    Hi there. Sent you a PM but maybe better posted here in case other people have the same question...

    I have the Polar FT60 which did a VO2max index when I first got it. SO...since my HRM has this function, do I still need to go in and change me age from 38 to 54 to account for the change in my BMR due to my BF?

    Thanks!
  • SlvrLyssa
    SlvrLyssa Posts: 41 Member
    Bump - Thanks!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    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! :love: :love:

    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?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Hi there. Sent you a PM but maybe better posted here in case other people have the same question...

    I have the Polar FT60 which did a VO2max index when I first got it. SO...since my HRM has this function, do I still need to go in and change me age from 38 to 54 to account for the change in my BMR due to my BF?

    Thanks!

    They do a rough estimate of VO2max, which can't really be tested by resting HR, and using the BMR and other stats to get that figure. That study in other topic link points out how inaccurate women's estimate of VO2max was using default values.

    It would help it I think, and I also think doing the submaximal step test for VO2max to see about where they estimated would be interesting and more correct.
    You may come up with a figure much better than they estimated. And then when feeling really brave, do the maximal test!

    I gotta believe with all those great workouts you got, your LBM has to be better than avg. While you are getting your BF% stat, the BMR calc is actually going off your LBM.
  • sarahs440
    sarahs440 Posts: 405
    bump!
  • TheMiddlePath
    TheMiddlePath Posts: 230 Member
    Hi there. Sent you a PM but maybe better posted here in case other people have the same question...

    I have the Polar FT60 which did a VO2max index when I first got it. SO...since my HRM has this function, do I still need to go in and change me age from 38 to 54 to account for the change in my BMR due to my BF?

    Thanks!

    They do a rough estimate of VO2max, which can't really be tested by resting HR, and using the BMR and other stats to get that figure. That study in other topic link points out how inaccurate women's estimate of VO2max was using default values.

    It would help it I think, and I also think doing the submaximal step test for VO2max to see about where they estimated would be interesting and more correct.
    You may come up with a figure much better than they estimated. And then when feeling really brave, do the maximal test!

    I gotta believe with all those great workouts you got, your LBM has to be better than avg. While you are getting your BF% stat, the BMR calc is actually going off your LBM.

    I'll change the setting today - about to head out for a walk to the REI store to buy a new pair of gloves for rowing which round trip will be about 2.5miles.

    I appreciate you saying that about the LBM but apparently not as the calculators say I am at 34.1%BF so my calorie burn stats will probably drop once I adjust the age to 54.

    So to confirm... that's the only thing I need to change is my age? (keep my weight the same (didn't do the other calculation)
    This changes my max HR to 167 from 182...it's going to freak out as I get to 184 during rowing or running!
  • TheMiddlePath
    TheMiddlePath Posts: 230 Member
    PS....my thighs were hurting all night and kept waking me up - and today they are uber tired!
  • RunHardBeStrong
    RunHardBeStrong Posts: 33,069 Member
    bump
  • omma_to_3
    omma_to_3 Posts: 3,265 Member
    Military BF% of 46% vs. Covert of 29%. Really??? I went with the 45% because it's probably more accurate for me. That makes me 84 yrs old. Nice. I think I'll leave my HRM the way it is LOL.
  • TheReese1206
    TheReese1206 Posts: 238
    Saving :)
  • Eleisabelle
    Eleisabelle Posts: 365
    bump
  • shellsy0424
    shellsy0424 Posts: 127 Member
    bump, picking up my Polar tomorrow.
  • christina_theresa
    christina_theresa Posts: 290 Member
    bump
  • TeraJo
    TeraJo Posts: 58 Member
    bump
  • fraiseroja
    fraiseroja Posts: 215 Member
    Bump
  • mhotch
    mhotch Posts: 901 Member
    BUMP,
  • dcgonz
    dcgonz Posts: 174 Member
    BUMP!
  • Lance_K
    Lance_K Posts: 104 Member
    bump
  • cansmith80
    cansmith80 Posts: 67
    BUMP!!
  • speedyf
    speedyf Posts: 1,571 Member
    bump to read later tonight and do some math.
  • Jen2ssaint
    Jen2ssaint Posts: 14
    Bump for later
  • LordBezoar
    LordBezoar Posts: 625 Member
    I shall have to look into this, Thanks!
  • the_great_unknown
    the_great_unknown Posts: 194 Member
    bump & thanks!
  • rmk20togo
    rmk20togo Posts: 353 Member
    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?

    My average net over the past 30 days was 1230 (assuming HRM was accurate-which I now know isn't true). Using that number as a BMR, I'd be 94 YEARS OLD (and I'm 51)....what!?!?! OMG :sad: :sad:

    So I should tell my HRM that I'm 94 years old and try to NET up to 1613?

    For the record, I'm happy to lose as slow as necessary to cut fat and start seeing some of the muscle I've been trying build.

    You're the best! Thanks for taking so much time to help me. I really want to get this right. If this works, you'll be my hero!!!
  • Tobi1013
    Tobi1013 Posts: 732 Member
    Bumping for later.
  • SarahMorganP
    SarahMorganP Posts: 921 Member
    Wow thanks for making me feel stupid! :laugh: I have no idea at all what any of you are saying. :noway: I don't even know how to do anything with my Polar 7, I have my husband put all my info in for me.
  • sheri02r
    sheri02r Posts: 486 Member
    bump for later
  • LisaManySongs
    LisaManySongs Posts: 76
    bump
  • mes1119
    mes1119 Posts: 1,082 Member
    BUMP.

    But TBH, I try not to be so technical with my calories in and calories out. I don't exactly want to obsess.
  • peterson_jessica
    peterson_jessica Posts: 119 Member
    bump for later. i'm off to work
This discussion has been closed.

Categories