Skip to content
  • Register
    • Viewing the message boards in:

    Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

    12357…18

    Replies

    • Posts: 520 Member
      show previous quotes

      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
    • Posts: 28
      beep
    • Posts: 56 Member
      bump
    • Posts: 160 Member
      bumpity for later!
    • Posts: 9
      pmub
    • Posts: 124 Member
      Bump for future reference! Thx for the info.
    • Posts: 77 Member
      bump for later
    • Posts: 18,842 Member
      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.
    • Posts: 5
      Bump
    • Posts: 632 Member
      bump
    • Posts: 114 Member
      Interesting. Thx
    • Posts: 520 Member
      show previous quotes

      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.
    • Posts: 149
      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.
    • Posts: 38 Member
      will be using this later, thanks!
    • Posts: 29 Member
      Wow, you're really smart! Thank you for posting!
    • Posts: 152 Member
      ump
    • Posts: 5
      bump
    • Posts: 344 Member
      Bump.
    • Posts: 125 Member
      bump
    • Posts: 117 Member
      bump
    • Posts: 816 Member
      bump
    • Posts: 54 Member
      Thanks, I got an FT40 a couple of weeks ago and I need to check this out.
    • Posts: 1,936 Member
      bumping so I can find this after I get my bf% from the bodpod!
    • Posts: 100 Member
      bump....i def may need help figuring this out :D
    • Posts: 33
      I need a cuppa cof and some free time to look this over. I have a PolarFT4 and I've been thinking I need to change the settings merely to reflect a few lbs weight loss.
    • Posts: 118 Member
      show previous quotes
      Earmarked*
      I'd suggest adding on 200 cal per day for a week, and then another 200 for another week, and you are there.
      So like, if you'll start doing 1430 right now, keep age at 51 because guess what, that's what is correct for that BMR!
      Then a week later when netting over 1600 (best to be over BMR slightly), you can use 13 yrs old.

      Wow - 94 to 13 in potentially 2 weeks, though it might really take 3.

      Also, if you want MFP setup to just do that automatically, like lower the daily goal as weight goes down, do the following setup.
      Settings - Diet/Fitness profile
      Activity Level - Lightly Active
      Weight loss goal - 1 lb weekly

      That should set your goal to about 1680 daily net. And then with more accurate calorie estimates of your favorite avg 13 yr old - you'll keep that muscle and make it stronger.

      Side comment, it's impossible for the body to build muscle with suppressed metabolism. After the exercise takes from the calories you eat, if the rest is below your real potential BMR, the body has to decide how it slows down to take care of functions the BMR does. Building muscle is not one of them.

      But eating higher, it is possible, though very difficult. But after 5lb drop, remeasure and see if you have gotten younger yet. And don't be upset if you got older, which is possible.
    • Posts: 18,842 Member
      show previous quotes
      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.

      Oh, I know what direction you said it went, which I was stating was indeed the wrong direction.
      Less weight for same level of effort (HR) burns less calories. So my own 9lb difference from 2 months ago to tonight had 13 less calories burned for exactly the same AHR and MHR.

      You state above your normal HR for comparison when they matched was 85-95, but when the weight was set lower, you had avg 125 max 145 - much higher level of effort. Even if the weight was less.

      And the BMF is still calculating a BMR figure also remember, that's why they asked for the exact same stats. They take an estimated BMR figure, and then tweak it slightly for your avg temp while you sleep. If higher than normal, they say BMR is higher slightly, if less, lower. But they are still starting on shaky foundation, BMR based on age/weight/height, compared to more accurate body composition age/weight/BF%.
    • Posts: 18,842 Member
      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.

      Burning less than it says.

      MHR really helps. Because now they know just how much effort your HR is.
      If pushing 160, and estimated MHR is 170, you would appear to really be pushing it - really burning up the cal's.
      But if MHR is really 200, than that was not nearly as hard an effort for you, not as many cal's.

      The BMR part helps a little, 50- over 100 an hour, depending on how much extra or less LBM you have compared to what is expected in the other BMR calc.

      So that means, as far as LBM, you have what the avg 35 yr old at your weight/height had in the studies that made the BMR formula the HRM uses.

      And then, your MHR may be so much better than the 220-age as to make that difference minor.
    • Posts: 132 Member
      Bump Thanks for posting
    • Posts: 12 Member
      Bump
    This discussion has been closed.

    Welcome!

    It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
    Sign In
    Register

    Quick Links

    Categories