Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

Options
1…78101213…27

Replies

  • murray292
    murray292 Posts: 32
    Options
    bump
  • sycarroll
    sycarroll Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • michie27
    michie27 Posts: 450 Member
    Options
    bump to read later
  • ElisaMarie82
    ElisaMarie82 Posts: 62
    Options
    Thanks for sharing! BUMP! :wink:
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Okay, obviously a very STUPID question but I'm new to MFP so I have to ask. What does it mean to "bump" and how do you do it?

    You just did!

    To find a topic of interest later, if you have your news feed report topics you responded to, it is now there for finding later.
    And you've just put it into your top 25 My Topics list to find later.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    bump

    @slyder432

    I'd love to know if you can even go low enough in age to make up for your high LBM compared to normal BMR calcs.

    When they did those studies - they didn't include anyone weight lifting.
  • abcdever
    abcdever Posts: 24
    Options
    [/quote]
    You just did!

    To find a topic of interest later, if you have your news feed report topics you responded to, it is now there for finding later.
    And you've just put it into your top 25 My Topics list to find later.
    [/quote]

    Great! Thanks so much! P.S. At first all the information you provided was interesting but EXTREMELY overwhelming. Once I took my time and read over it a second time, though, it made a great deal of sense. Followed the steps you gave (which were very simply, by the way) and came up with my new number. Updated my HRM and am looking forward to what I get tomorrow. Thanks so much for the info! I love for my entries into MFP to be as accurate as possible, which is why I purchased the HRM, so I greatly appreciate your post. Keep 'em coming!
  • _Kitten_Kate
    _Kitten_Kate Posts: 520 Member
    Options
    No... my normal *resting* heart rate is around 80-95bpm.
    With the wt set previously at 244-250... and walking the same route my HR was usually about avg123-max145bpm.
    So, with a lighter wt that was entered(170) and the same walk and BPM... it says I burned more.
    Because before...with the same type of exercise the HRM and BMF would have matched. This time the HRM was higher... by almost 18 cals.

    So, what have I done wrong? Should I change the age instead of wt?
    Because my results and what you are saying is not matching up.

    Ahhh, RHR is 80-95.

    Ya, impossible that it would report more calories at less weight. That's why the best method is age. But weight still goes only 1 direction if it is less, so I bet something else got changed.

    Is this a Polar? Didn't change age?
    Well... not impossible. Because that is the only thing I changed.
    Yes... Polar FT4... did not change age... only weight.
    And... it will only go back to 1921... So... I can't make it 95 years old.

    So?... I put the wt back to my current wt... and change the age to 91... cuz that's as low as it will go.
    Is that correct? .
    It makes my Max HR 130
    Where with changing the wt... and not the age.. my max is 184.

    ???
    Edit to add....
    Re calculated my net cals for the last 7 days... averaged ~2400. Assume the metabolism is back up.. So, changed age to match est BMR... (18 years old!) with HR max of 200.
    We shall see....
  • gogojodee
    gogojodee Posts: 1,261 Member
    Options
    BUMP. Getting mine soon. SO this will be helpful.
  • StoryGirl9
    StoryGirl9 Posts: 37
    Options
    Okay, so I think I figured this out...
    1 - 1550
    2 - 23.4
    3 - 1624
    4 - 12

    Part 2
    1 -1550
    2 - About 1400

    However, based on the previous, I think I will try and up my NET to around 1600 instead of 1400. So, should I alter the stats in my HRM to put my age as 12?? That is where I got lost.

    I am a very fit female (have done Insanity, P90X and currently doing P90X2), but I have completely stalled in my weight loss (stuck at 5'6" and 168.5 FOREVER - 30 years old). So, based on the calculations AND weight loss plateau, I should go up in NET AND adjust my HRM?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Great! Thanks so much! P.S. At first all the information you provided was interesting but EXTREMELY overwhelming. Once I took my time and read over it a second time, though, it made a great deal of sense. Followed the steps you gave (which were very simply, by the way) and came up with my new number. Updated my HRM and am looking forward to what I get tomorrow. Thanks so much for the info! I love for my entries into MFP to be as accurate as possible, which is why I purchased the HRM, so I greatly appreciate your post. Keep 'em coming!

    Let us know how the submaximal tests go for correcting the max HR.

    No one is reporting in that it killed them, or too easy, or anything. I'm guessing to easy, or waiting until the next workout.
  • ThinkThin85
    ThinkThin85 Posts: 150 Member
    Options
    bump
  • Sumo813
    Sumo813 Posts: 566 Member
    Options
    Definite bump! And thanks!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Well... not impossible. Because that is the only thing I changed.
    Yes... Polar FT4... did not change age... only weight.
    And... it will only go back to 1921... So... I can't make it 95 years old.

    So?... I put the wt back to my current wt... and change the age to 91... cuz that's as low as it will go.
    Is that correct? .
    It makes my Max HR 130
    Where with changing the wt... and not the age.. my max is 184.

    ???
    Edit to add....
    Re calculated my net cals for the last 7 days... averaged ~2400. Assume the metabolism is back up.. So, changed age to match est BMR... (18 years old!) with HR max of 200.
    We shall see....
    I have a tracking app that every workout is recorded in, and a place to record AHR, MHR, weight, ect.
    I went through every single entry, when the AHR and MHR were close within 2bpm between old and new weights, the calorie count always went down.
    That's the way it works, less weight, less effort, if the HR stays the same.

    So there is something wrong with the HRM.

    Now - MHR has a bigger bearing on calorie count - hence the self test to correct that. That is farther down the post.

    And that calculated figure of MHR on the watch has no bearing on your true MHR, it is merely 220-age - and even more inaccurate for women. So neither past nor present are accurate, unless your true MHR happens to match one of those.
  • kristi_asco
    kristi_asco Posts: 183
    Options
    gotta check this out
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Okay, so I think I figured this out...
    1 - 1550
    2 - 23.4
    3 - 1624
    4 - 12

    Part 2
    1 -1550
    2 - About 1400

    However, based on the previous, I think I will try and up my NET to around 1600 instead of 1400. So, should I alter the stats in my HRM to put my age as 12?? That is where I got lost.

    I am a very fit female (have done Insanity, P90X and currently doing P90X2), but I have completely stalled in my weight loss (stuck at 5'6" and 168.5 FOREVER - 30 years old). So, based on the calculations AND weight loss plateau, I should go up in NET AND adjust my HRM?

    For just a bit of difference for one week, I'd use what you'll be at. That way you'll be eating back the exercise calories of the fact you are actually burning more when the metabolism is burning fully. Even if it takes a week to do so.

    Don't forget to test for better MHR - that has bigger bearing on true calorie count.
  • dixiecup19
    dixiecup19 Posts: 50 Member
    Options
    bump
  • TrishBH
    TrishBH Posts: 16 Member
    Options
    bump
  • Mindmovesbody
    Mindmovesbody Posts: 399 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • Russian1
    Russian1 Posts: 21 Member
    Options
    bump. I have to figure this out. I have a Polar FT7 and always thought the calorie calcs were off.

Categories