Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

Options
1…1112141617…27

Replies

  • Maurice1966
    Maurice1966 Posts: 438 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • gablondie
    gablondie Posts: 10
    Options
    So I did the test for the MHR. I came up with 221. That seems awful high to me. I had 156 avg hr and I added 65 to it for "average". My HRM has it set at 186 right now.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    So I did the test for the MHR. I came up with 221. That seems awful high to me. I had 156 avg hr and I added 65 to it for "average". My HRM has it set at 186 right now.

    Was that avg for the last min, or the whole test? Which actually I guess if for the whole test, would have been lower than just the last min.

    All warmed up too?

    Followed a rest day? If yesterday was hard, system not recovered so it'll appear higher than expected.

    Because that is a tad high. Wouldn't be surprised though if you've seen 186 or higher before, without feeling like you were dying at the moment.
  • mckant
    mckant Posts: 217 Member
    Options
    I'm definitely going to try this. Thanks!
  • gablondie
    gablondie Posts: 10
    Options
    So I did the test for the MHR. I came up with 221. That seems awful high to me. I had 156 avg hr and I added 65 to it for "average". My HRM has it set at 186 right now.

    Was that avg for the last min, or the whole test? Which actually I guess if for the whole test, would have been lower than just the last min.

    All warmed up too?

    Followed a rest day? If yesterday was hard, system not recovered so it'll appear higher than expected.

    Because that is a tad high. Wouldn't be surprised though if you've seen 186 or higher before, without feeling like you were dying at the moment.

    That was just the last minute.
    I had done 30 mins on the elliptical...........maybe I shouldn't have. Didn't think about that. I saw that it wanted you to warm up 10 -15 mins before.
    No, yesterday was pretty intense.
    I've noticed that I tend to always end up in zone 2 and 3 with my watch telling me to take it easy...............yet I don't feel like I"m working *that hard. So I went ahead and adjusted my age. I am 34, after doing the calcs it had me at 24( woo hoo) and it upped my MHR to 196. So I will stick with that for now and see how I feel.
  • rmk20togo
    rmk20togo Posts: 353 Member
    Options
    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


    SHUT THE FRONT DOOR!!!!! I went today for a metabolism test and hydrostatic body fat test and ........wait for it..........my BMR was 1613 exactly (please refer to :noway: above). MFP calculates it at 1450'ish.

    1613 x 1.2 (desk job) + 600 avg daily burn - 250 (-.5#) = 2285 to lose .5# per week. My average intake for the month of March was 1800 gross and I lost nothing!!! Interestingly, fat2fit recommends 2072-2306. So, $100 later, I'm going to take all the free advice here and on fat2fit and bump up my calories again. So far I've maintained on averages of 1400-1800, let's see what happens at 2200.:love:

    Haybales now that I know my accurate BMR is 1613 and, using your calculator that makes me 13 years old, does that mean my HRM has been reading high or low? I'm going to reset it tonight.

    Sadly, body fat was 30%.....:explode.....and to get to the 20% I'd love to see, I have to lose 20# which will make for one wrinkly 51 year old.
  • gablondie
    gablondie Posts: 10
    Options
    That's good to know that the BMR was so exact! Cool.
  • laughlovelive17
    laughlovelive17 Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    Thanks so much for the info! I'll be recalculating!
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    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


    SHUT THE FRONT DOOR!!!!! I went today for a metabolism test and hydrostatic body fat test and ........wait for it..........my BMR was 1613 exactly (please refer to :noway: above). MFP calculates it at 1450'ish.

    1613 x 1.2 (desk job) + 600 avg daily burn - 250 (-.5#) = 2285 to lose .5# per week. My average intake for the month of March was 1800 gross and I lost nothing!!! Interestingly, fat2fit recommends 2072-2306. So, $100 later, I'm going to take all the free advice here and on fat2fit and bump up my calories again. So far I've maintained on averages of 1400-1800, let's see what happens at 2200.:love:

    Haybales now that I know my accurate BMR is 1613 and, using your calculator that makes me 13 years old, does that mean my HRM has been reading high or low? I'm going to reset it tonight.

    Sadly, body fat was 30%.....:explode.....and to get to the 20% I'd love to see, I have to lose 20# which will make for one wrinkly 51 year old.

    So you have much better real BMR than HRM was aware of, it was underestimating the burns.

    Now, as soon as you change the age, it will recalc your max HR, which of course may have been off anyway, but really will be now.

    So I'd do that Max HR test, since that has a bigger bearing on calorie burn.
  • NekaLee
    NekaLee Posts: 51
    Options
    *saving for later*
  • MMarvelous
    MMarvelous Posts: 1,067 Member
    Options
    I will read this as I travel tomorrow. Thanks for posting!
  • JaySpice
    JaySpice Posts: 326 Member
    Options
    bump to read later
  • regmcc
    regmcc Posts: 81 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • abouck
    abouck Posts: 71 Member
    Options
    I have the Polar FT7. I entered my correct age weight and heights and went for a 2.95 mile walk yesterday and average 3 mph. My HRM said I burned 525 calories. I think this amount is way too high. I completed the calculations per your instructions and found my age should be 55 even though I am only 34. If I change the age to 55 won't the HRM show an even higher calorie burn? I also have a fitbit and that showed I burned 289 calories which I believe is accurate or a least a lot closer to accurate than 525. So my current stats on my HRM are age 34, height 5'2" and weight 140lbs. It also has my MHR at 186. What am I doing wrong?
  • wahchile
    wahchile Posts: 19
    Options
    bump
  • Spamee
    Spamee Posts: 148 Member
    Options
    bump for later to read this whole thread
  • LBachynsky
    LBachynsky Posts: 64
    Options
    tag for later.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I have the Polar FT7. I entered my correct age weight and heights and went for a 2.95 mile walk yesterday and average 3 mph. My HRM said I burned 525 calories. I think this amount is way too high. I completed the calculations per your instructions and found my age should be 55 even though I am only 34. If I change the age to 55 won't the HRM show an even higher calorie burn? I also have a fitbit and that showed I burned 289 calories which I believe is accurate or a least a lot closer to accurate than 525. So my current stats on my HRM are age 34, height 5'2" and weight 140lbs. It also has my MHR at 186. What am I doing wrong?

    Age 55 metabolism or age 34 metabolism? Older is slower on avg for same height/weight, less calorie burn at equal HR compared to max HR.

    So it would indeed read lower for that factor. As you suspected, reading a tad high.

    Now, you adjust that, and the Polar is going to auto-adjust the max HR stat, so put it back at 186 until such time you feel like doing that step test in the second half of the post.

    And since your LBM will hopefully be improving as you lose weight, redo the calc's every 5lbs lost. You'll keep getting younger in so many ways right before your eyes!
  • Annafly3
    Annafly3 Posts: 63
    Options
    bump
  • Becca211H
    Becca211H Posts: 24 Member
    Options
    Bump, hoping for a HRM for Mothers day!

Categories