Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

1…78101213…18

Replies

  • MMarvelous
    MMarvelous Posts: 1,067 Member
    I will read this as I travel tomorrow. Thanks for posting!
  • JaySpice
    JaySpice Posts: 326 Member
    bump to read later
  • regmcc
    regmcc Posts: 81 Member
    Bump
  • abouck
    abouck Posts: 71 Member
    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
    bump
  • Spamee
    Spamee Posts: 148 Member
    bump for later to read this whole thread
  • LBachynsky
    LBachynsky Posts: 64
    tag for later.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    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
    bump
  • Becca211H
    Becca211H Posts: 24 Member
    Bump, hoping for a HRM for Mothers day!
  • klakers3
    klakers3 Posts: 189 Member
    Bump for later
  • kandy221
    kandy221 Posts: 79
    bump
  • kmayne
    kmayne Posts: 82 Member
    Bump
  • Always824
    Always824 Posts: 111 Member
    Never done this before but "BUMP"
  • wareagle8706
    wareagle8706 Posts: 1,090 Member
    So, according to this method... I am supposed to plug age 24 into my Polar... I'm 25... so... I'm right where I need to be??
  • May63
    May63 Posts: 162
    bump
  • Kempossible
    Kempossible Posts: 158 Member
    Bump to read later. Thanks!
  • KF1216
    KF1216 Posts: 175 Member
    bump
  • aubryannewilson
    aubryannewilson Posts: 34 Member
    Bump for when I get my FT4 this weekend.
  • JamCubeChi
    JamCubeChi Posts: 378 Member
    Bump for later
  • mzhokie
    mzhokie Posts: 349 Member
    bump
  • abouck
    abouck Posts: 71 Member
    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!

    Actual age is 34 Metabolism age is 55. Thank you so much for the information. This was a huge help. I will enter my age as 55 on my HRM and adjust the max heart rate to 186 and see how many calories on burn on the same walk tonight.
  • ipsamet
    ipsamet Posts: 436 Member
    Thanks for this!
  • Libby81
    Libby81 Posts: 734 Member
    my polar does a fitness test and calculates my VO2max
  • HappilyLifts
    HappilyLifts Posts: 429 Member
    I just followed your instructions and although I'm 43 and overweight I came out with an age of 26. My covert bailey figure was 32.5%, my bathroom scales around 39%. My BMR came out at 1730, not far off what I've been using until now (around 1650)
    I'm confused.
    Does that mean I have more LBM than I think? I've always considered myself mostly fat.
    Can you tell me what this will mean if I change my Polar FT7 from age 43 to age 26? How would that affect the estimated calorie burn it records?
    I probably need to read the whole thread but my head is starting to hurt. I've been number crunching and figuring out stuff all day :laugh:
  • shrinkingsuccess
    shrinkingsuccess Posts: 40
    bump
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    my polar does a fitness test and calculates my VO2max

    Estimates VO2max, based on reading your resting HR.

    If you've ever seen how VO2max is measured and tested really, you'll find it interesting that an estimate can be done based on resting HR. And not even true in the morning before moving resting HR. Just sit still for a minute resting HR.

    And those tests leave a lot to be desired for women sadly.

    If you have a stat for VO2max you can change, you would benefit from testing for it yourself.
    Besides, it's fun. Kinda. Well, not really, Perhaps couple days after when you've forgotten the pain and agony of defeat.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/466973-i-want-to-test-for-my-max-heart-rate-vo2-max
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    So, according to this method... I am supposed to plug age 24 into my Polar... I'm 25... so... I'm right where I need to be??

    You are - skip it.

    Now, you may have a different max HR then estimated, second half of post for estimating that will have bigger effect on calorie burn.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I just followed your instructions and although I'm 43 and overweight I came out with an age of 26. My covert bailey figure was 32.5%, my bathroom scales around 39%. My BMR came out at 1730, not far off what I've been using until now (around 1650)
    I'm confused.
    Does that mean I have more LBM than I think? I've always considered myself mostly fat.
    Can you tell me what this will mean if I change my Polar FT7 from age 43 to age 26? How would that affect the estimated calorie burn it records?
    I probably need to read the whole thread but my head is starting to hurt. I've been number crunching and figuring out stuff all day :laugh:

    You may be overweight, but you have more lean body mass (hopefully more muscle than bone, ha!) than avg gal your weight/height.

    So interesting side point, the BMR calcs using age/weight/height were based on studies of people AT healthy weight already, and avg LBM / fat ratio's.
    Usually when the calc is applied to overweight, there is NOT the same ratio, and having less LBM, means smaller BMR than calculated.
    So 1650 based on age/weight/height normally, for avg overweight person, would have been inflated.

    But your more accurate BMR calc based on body composition - 1730, is actually higher yet! Even if you avg good scale reading with measurement reading.

    So your plan in the other thread to retain your LBM my feeding your workouts and BMR is very wise, you are starting out with more LBM.

    And yes, avg 26 yr old at your height/weight has your metabolism. Good news. You actually burn more than HRM has been showing.

    After you change age, HRM will adjust the max HR on that stat page too. That has a bigger bearing on calorie burn, and so should be corrected too. 220-age for inaccurate estimate, second half of OP for easy test method for better estimate.
  • Carim007
    Carim007 Posts: 45 Member
    Hi HeyBales,

    Finally took the time to go through your excellent recommendations ... !!!

    Thanks to you, I am 11 years younger ... Great feeling ... !!!

    But I do not quite get the second paragraph of your OP, when daily goal is below BMR ...
    a) which BMR is it : the initial one or the more accurate estimate ?
    b) when getting decent BMR estimate, is it different from the first point of the initial paragraph or should I use my new biological age?
    c) is the final objective to input in HRM both a biological age and an hypothetical weight only to trick the built-in stats ?

    Thanks in advance for your insights

Categories