Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

Allic1971 · April 2012

Ok what do I do wrong??? (and yes I am blonde LOL)

BMR before is 1531, Fat percentage is 21.5 and bmr after is 1743, I have to go into negative numbers to get 1743.....

Results:

38.12% (U.S. Navy Circumference Method #1 - men and women)

30.03% (U.S. Navy Circumference Method #2 - women only)

21.5% (book by Covert Bailey "Fit or Fat")

29.9% Average

Carim007 · April 2012

Thanks Heybales ... !!!

as always with your comments ... It is extremely clear AND indispensable !!!

Thanks again

marie111 · April 2012

bump

jms3533 · April 2012

Bump

tracymarie2012 · April 2012

Good info, thanks! Bump

shorty313 · April 2012

bump for later

Nigerianebony · April 2012

Hey all, I own a polar. If you want accuracy with your calorie burn, I suggest you get a metabolic test. Use your results and put it in your watch. This is probably the best way to get an accurate reading. The test actually measured my BMR, my VO2 max, HR max, and my zones. It turns out that i was truly overestimating my calorie burn before the test. Once i put my metrics into my polar, I realized that I had to push myself harder. Sooooo if you really want an accurate read, get the metabolic test. It is worth it.

NOTE, i get tested every 6month. If you are consistent with training, then your measurements will change significantly. Mine did. And it sucked, cuz i have to push myself harder every time.

dsengel01 · April 2012

bump - will be getting my Polar this weekend

heybales · April 2012

Hey all, I own a polar. If you want accuracy with your calorie burn, I suggest you get a metabolic test. Use your results and put it in your watch. This is probably the best way to get an accurate reading. The test actually measured my BMR, my VO2 max, HR max, and my zones. It turns out that i was truly overestimating my calorie burn before the test. Once i put my metrics into my polar, I realized that I had to push myself harder. Sooooo if you really want an accurate read, get the metabolic test. It is worth it.

NOTE, i get tested every 6month. If you are consistent with training, then your measurements will change significantly. Mine did. And it sucked, cuz i have to push myself harder every time.

Curious if they gave you a lactate threshold level in there, and if you set up any training zones according to that?
My next post will be for that, not really HRM setup, but smart training zones to use.

And how much was that nice full test in US dollars, and what kind of facility?

Oh, spot on for all the stats being needed. BMR is the easiest math-wise to do, MHR is most important, and VO2max is useful, though with the other two corrected, it seems to estimate it better.

heybales · April 2012

Ok what do I do wrong??? (and yes I am blonde LOL)

BMR before is 1531, Fat percentage is 21.5 and bmr after is 1743, I have to go into negative numbers to get 1743.....

Results:

38.12% (U.S. Navy Circumference Method #1 - men and women)

30.03% (U.S. Navy Circumference Method #2 - women only)

21.5% (book by Covert Bailey "Fit or Fat")

29.9% Average

No, you did it correctly. Based on Lean Body Mass, your estimated BMR could be 1743.
Problem is, any potential BMR can't be that if there isn't that many calories left over after exercise took it's share from what you ate. So, if you've been NET'ing around 1400 because you told MFP 1lb weekly, then that is really your BMR.

So, if you really NET above 1743, then that really could be how high you are running. And correct if you net that high, you have the metabolism of avg gal of your height/weight much younger than you - mathematically, of course at some point talking babies and that isn't the case.

But if NET'ing below, then you have the metabolism of avg gal your height/weight older than you.

So 2 points, some body types don't do well with measured stats to estimate BF%, which of course means LBM % and lbs is off, and throws off the BMR calc based on LBM. Also if measuring after you have done some strength training, or retaining water, would throw it off.
So leaving the combo Navy out of the equation, you might try the women only and Covert Bailey which is also gender specific. So use that avg 28.5% for now.

But if NET'ing below your potential estimated BMR, then that doesn't even matter, your metabolism is slower, so less burn than HRM is estimating, not more.
You'll be adjusting the age up until BMR hits what you NET eat on avg.

Oh, after you change the age, the HRM adjusts the max HR to 220-age. And it may have been wrong before, it is really wrong now. So do that step test too for better MHR stat - that has biggest bearing on calorie burn estimate.

rmk20togo · April 2012

Hey all, I own a polar. If you want accuracy with your calorie burn, I suggest you get a metabolic test. Use your results and put it in your watch. This is probably the best way to get an accurate reading. The test actually measured my BMR, my VO2 max, HR max, and my zones. It turns out that i was truly overestimating my calorie burn before the test. Once i put my metrics into my polar, I realized that I had to push myself harder. Sooooo if you really want an accurate read, get the metabolic test. It is worth it.

NOTE, i get tested every 6month. If you are consistent with training, then your measurements will change significantly. Mine did. And it sucked, cuz i have to push myself harder every time.

I'm considering a VO@max test, but I'm reading horror stories about the test itself. Tell me what it consisted of.

I have my first metabolism and hydrostatic body comp test scheduled next and might add VO2max if it wasn't terrible. I'm already a little intimidated by the hydrostatic testing....

heybales · April 2012

Hey all, I own a polar. If you want accuracy with your calorie burn, I suggest you get a metabolic test. Use your results and put it in your watch. This is probably the best way to get an accurate reading. The test actually measured my BMR, my VO2 max, HR max, and my zones. It turns out that i was truly overestimating my calorie burn before the test. Once i put my metrics into my polar, I realized that I had to push myself harder. Sooooo if you really want an accurate read, get the metabolic test. It is worth it.

NOTE, i get tested every 6month. If you are consistent with training, then your measurements will change significantly. Mine did. And it sucked, cuz i have to push myself harder every time.

I'm considering a VO@max test, but I'm reading horror stories about the test itself. Tell me what it consisted of.

I have my first metabolism and hydrostatic body comp test scheduled next and might add VO2max if it wasn't terrible. I'm already a little intimidated by the hydrostatic testing....

Mine was also a max HR test, so you go until you can't anymore.

Mine was also total walking, and increasing the incline to cause the pain. Since I don't walk 3.7 mph up 24% incline ever - my achilles locked up before my heart did.

They estimated where the MHR must be based on getting the lactate threshold and VO2max figures. Which frankly are more important training stats.

Then later on my own I did a MHR test that was running at more gentle incline (the one referenced in the linked post), and surpassed their estimate just barely.

dwiebe85 · April 2012

bump

frosty73 · April 2012

Bump!

2fit4fat · April 2012

bump to look into later

Sueboo31 · April 2012

Bump. Thx!

Allic1971 · April 2012

Ok what do I do wrong??? (and yes I am blonde LOL)

BMR before is 1531, Fat percentage is 21.5 and bmr after is 1743, I have to go into negative numbers to get 1743.....

Results:

38.12% (U.S. Navy Circumference Method #1 - men and women)

30.03% (U.S. Navy Circumference Method #2 - women only)

21.5% (book by Covert Bailey "Fit or Fat")

29.9% Average

No, you did it correctly. Based on Lean Body Mass, your estimated BMR could be 1743.
Problem is, any potential BMR can't be that if there isn't that many calories left over after exercise took it's share from what you ate. So, if you've been NET'ing around 1400 because you told MFP 1lb weekly, then that is really your BMR.

So, if you really NET above 1743, then that really could be how high you are running. And correct if you net that high, you have the metabolism of avg gal of your height/weight much younger than you - mathematically, of course at some point talking babies and that isn't the case.

But if NET'ing below, then you have the metabolism of avg gal your height/weight older than you.

So 2 points, some body types don't do well with measured stats to estimate BF%, which of course means LBM % and lbs is off, and throws off the BMR calc based on LBM. Also if measuring after you have done some strength training, or retaining water, would throw it off.
So leaving the combo Navy out of the equation, you might try the women only and Covert Bailey which is also gender specific. So use that avg 28.5% for now.

But if NET'ing below your potential estimated BMR, then that doesn't even matter, your metabolism is slower, so less burn than HRM is estimating, not more.
You'll be adjusting the age up until BMR hits what you NET eat on avg.

Oh, after you change the age, the HRM adjusts the max HR to 220-age. And it may have been wrong before, it is really wrong now. So do that step test too for better MHR stat - that has biggest bearing on calorie burn estimate.

Many thanks, will take another look into it, and your right I do have a slower metabolism as my body shape is Endomorph. I generally only net 900+ cals, but this last week I have upped it to 1200+ , changed my carb/fat/protein % and lost 2 pounds.

Thanks for getting back to me!
Cheers
Alli