Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

Options
1…457910…27

Replies

  • _Kitten_Kate
    _Kitten_Kate Posts: 520 Member
    Options
    If I have been netting around 1500-1600 on average.... my wt entered into HRM should be around 170...Which I ironically is my goal weight.

    But once constantly netting above 1880-BMR and no wt change.. I change it to my current wt and age to 33 yrs old.(4 yrs younger)

    How long should I stay above BMR with my net before I reassess?
    a month?

    You are correct if changing the weight lowers it better than upping the age. Older doesn't drop it as much. But I thought a much more interesting effect to see what age you would be with a suppressed metabolism.

    And true, if you can net at the higher BMR that body composition gives you, even better, and younger in that sense.
    One week, you don't have much change to effect.

    Ok.. so tonight I had my HRM set at 170lbs... and Also wore my BMF....
    Walked for an hour and 23 mins.... in zone for 53 mins avg 124bpm...max of 148bpm.
    calories...642 per HRM

    Per BMF...629.

    Before.... they were exact match when walking.

    So, with this... I assume I have been burning more than what I thought?

    Still having a hard time netting that much... especially when I am walking and or working out. I would have to consume close to 3000 calories or more. That's a tough one.

    How does this play into your other ways of ... eating above... and not worrying about eating back calories....it all evens out on rest days?

    P.S. To change by age makes it 95!!!! @ 1600bmr
  • kkester63
    kkester63 Posts: 28
    Options
    beep
  • krsaxton
    krsaxton Posts: 56 Member
    Options
    bump
  • fitjunk
    fitjunk Posts: 160 Member
    Options
    bumpity for later!
  • stevenc78
    stevenc78 Posts: 9
    Options
    pmub
  • tropicalgirl34
    tropicalgirl34 Posts: 126 Member
    Options
    Bump for future reference! Thx for the info.
  • lilbitsc89
    lilbitsc89 Posts: 77 Member
    Options
    bump for later
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Ok.. so tonight I had my HRM set at 170lbs... and Also wore my BMF....
    Walked for an hour and 23 mins.... in zone for 53 mins avg 124bpm...max of 148bpm.
    calories...642 per HRM

    Per BMF...629.

    Before.... they were exact match when walking.

    So, with this... I assume I have been burning more than what I thought?

    Still having a hard time netting that much... especially when I am walking and or working out. I would have to consume close to 3000 calories or more. That's a tough one.

    How does this play into your other ways of ... eating above... and not worrying about eating back calories....it all evens out on rest days?

    P.S. To change by age makes it 95!!!! @ 1600bmr

    Lighter weight at same HR is burning less calories, so that calorie burn would have been much more at higher weight. So correct you were getting overstated estimate previously. Sounds like a strenuous walk though at that good HR. BMF probably didn't know how much effort.

    So that HR is more than the calm daily activity type mentioned before, but still low enough you could get by eating back half of them.
  • Lonecandy
    Lonecandy Posts: 5
    Options
    Bump
  • XtyAnn17
    XtyAnn17 Posts: 632 Member
    Options
    bump
  • LolaVersion2
    LolaVersion2 Posts: 114 Member
    Options
    Interesting. Thx
  • _Kitten_Kate
    _Kitten_Kate Posts: 520 Member
    Options
    Ok.. so tonight I had my HRM set at 170lbs... and Also wore my BMF....
    Walked for an hour and 23 mins.... in zone for 53 mins avg 124bpm...max of 148bpm.
    calories...642 per HRM

    Per BMF...629.

    Before.... they were exact match when walking.

    So, with this... I assume I have been burning more than what I thought?

    Still having a hard time netting that much... especially when I am walking and or working out. I would have to consume close to 3000 calories or more. That's a tough one.

    How does this play into your other ways of ... eating above... and not worrying about eating back calories....it all evens out on rest days?

    P.S. To change by age makes it 95!!!! @ 1600bmr

    Lighter weight at same HR is burning less calories, so that calorie burn would have been much more at higher weight. So correct you were getting overstated estimate previously. Sounds like a strenuous walk though at that good HR. BMF probably didn't know how much effort.

    So that HR is more than the calm daily activity type mentioned before, but still low enough you could get by eating back half of them.
    No! I burned more with the wt set at 170 than what it would have been at 244.
    The walk wasn't strenuous. Just a normal walk... Talked to a friend the whole time.
    My hr is 85-95 normally... Out of shape.

    The hrm would have matched the BMF at 629 before changing the wt. Did I do something wrong?
    Still only netted 1570.
  • theNurseNancy
    theNurseNancy Posts: 149
    Options
    I dont get it. Does that mean I'm burning more or less calories than my HRM says I am? I got an age of 35 according to your formula and I'm 25.


    edit: I know my max HR. I know that helps the accuracy as well.
  • KristysGonnaGetFit
    KristysGonnaGetFit Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    will be using this later, thanks!
  • prwthomas
    prwthomas Posts: 43 Member
    Options
    Wow, you're really smart! Thank you for posting!
  • Cueball55
    Cueball55 Posts: 152 Member
    Options
    ump
  • rene1977
    rene1977 Posts: 5
    Options
    bump
  • nermal6873
    nermal6873 Posts: 344 Member
    Options
    Bump.
  • SarahSwimmer
    SarahSwimmer Posts: 125 Member
    Options
    bump
  • Tami113
    Tami113 Posts: 117 Member
    Options
    bump

Categories