Setup Polar HRM for more accurate calorie burn for known BMR

1…89111314…18

Replies

  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    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 ?

    Congrats on being younger, hopefully you are feeding that younger self. Remember when we always said we wished we had

    Well, it's 2 sections doing 2 different things depending on your net eating level.

    If you are net eating at or above estimated potential BMR, then it really has a chance of being that high, therefore your metabolism could be that of another age, comparing body comp BMR to weight/height BMR.

    But if you are already net eating below any potential BMR, and plan on doing that still, then your real BMR is closer to what your body has left after exercise takes it's calories. Which means you will always have metabolism of someone older than you, at same height/weight.
    The weight part to fool the HRM is needed because you can't put in an age over 90 I think. And if someone has suppressed their metabolism by 300-400 calories by eating low, you'd be around 150-200 yrs old mathematically.
    I suppose you could actually max the age out, and adjust the height shorter to reflect a shorter metabolism.

    So you do either part 1, or part 2 - not both.

    No matter which part you do there though, doing the second half of the topic with getting correct MHR has a bigger bearing on calorie burn estimates.
  • JLove2Zumba
    JLove2Zumba Posts: 54
    Bump
  • Carim007
    Carim007 Posts: 45 Member
    Many many thanks for your clarification ... !!!

    I am sticking to your part 1 ... !!!

    It is so nice of you to help us out with your very broad knowledge ...

    Cheers
    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 ?

    Congrats on being younger, hopefully you are feeding that younger self. Remember when we always said we wished we had

    Well, it's 2 sections doing 2 different things depending on your net eating level.

    If you are net eating at or above estimated potential BMR, then it really has a chance of being that high, therefore your metabolism could be that of another age, comparing body comp BMR to weight/height BMR.

    But if you are already net eating below any potential BMR, and plan on doing that still, then your real BMR is closer to what your body has left after exercise takes it's calories. Which means you will always have metabolism of someone older than you, at same height/weight.
    The weight part to fool the HRM is needed because you can't put in an age over 90 I think. And if someone has suppressed their metabolism by 300-400 calories by eating low, you'd be around 150-200 yrs old mathematically.
    I suppose you could actually max the age out, and adjust the height shorter to reflect a shorter metabolism.

    So you do either part 1, or part 2 - not both.

    No matter which part you do there though, doing the second half of the topic with getting correct MHR has a bigger bearing on calorie burn estimates.
  • JayByrd107
    JayByrd107 Posts: 282 Member
    Bump
  • Lance_K
    Lance_K Posts: 104 Member
    bump
  • JayByrd107
    JayByrd107 Posts: 282 Member
    Do you know what the reduction of margin of error is on the calorie burn estimate is using this method (under or over estimate)? I've heard 20% for unaltered settings.

    I'm 34 and I set my HRM to 31.
  • embclark
    embclark Posts: 186 Member
    I calculated my age at the start of the monh and was 14... (I'm really 30.) I recalculated today because I have lost a bit in inches and now I am 18. Does that make sense? If I am down inches and a few pounds, shouldn't i be younger? Not that I want to be 10 o anything! I was just wondering!
  • SultanPepper
    SultanPepper Posts: 6
    Bump
  • alaina216
    alaina216 Posts: 103
    bumping for later
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Do you know what the reduction of margin of error is on the calorie burn estimate is using this method (under or over estimate)? I've heard 20% for unaltered settings.

    I'm 34 and I set my HRM to 31.

    That won't be much to notice, that's not as bad as the 20 yr differences that many have either because they have great LBM, or they underfeed.

    But, having a different max HR compared to Polar calc can have a bigger difference. A change of 3 bpm on mine changed an hr at same AHR about 20 cal.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I calculated my age at the start of the monh and was 14... (I'm really 30.) I recalculated today because I have lost a bit in inches and now I am 18. Does that make sense? If I am down inches and a few pounds, shouldn't i be younger? Not that I want to be 10 o anything! I was just wondering!

    It means you are getting closer to the expected ratio the age/weight/height was expecting.
    So this means your LBM went down.

    In fact, since you know the age/weight/height BMR number, put in the bodyfat% and adjust it up or down to match that BMR. That tells you what bodyfat% ratio the other calc is expecting for someone your age/weight/height.
    You won't use that anywhere, just shows you if better or worse than expected, i guess better.

    It just means you aren't keeping your LBM. Then again, if within 5%, that is the margin of error.

    Congrats on still being younger though!
  • hazleyes81
    hazleyes81 Posts: 296 Member
    Awesome post! Thanks.
  • NekaLee
    NekaLee Posts: 51
    I'm so lost :huh: I have a polar ft4 and my frd set mines up for me. Please explain what I'm suppose to do to get more accurate reading!

    Thank you kindly, :drinker:
  • ClascyParra
    ClascyParra Posts: 85
    bump
  • beachdiva2010
    beachdiva2010 Posts: 180 Member
    Bump for later.
  • sweettoothfairy
    sweettoothfairy Posts: 212 Member
    It shows my age as 1 year old... i have huge fat around tummy, how is that even possible?
  • BlueBaron37
    BlueBaron37 Posts: 107 Member
    My Max HR for my age on the FT4 is 175, 45 years old. This is automatic you can't change this.

    But in real life my Max HR is 195, so I change my age to 25 on the Polar FT4 this set my Max HR to 195 and set my zones correct and in fact calibrated my FT4 to me.

    The formula used by Polar for men is 220 - age. So for me that was 220-45=175.

    So if you know your maximin heart beat per minute do this 220 - Max BMP = age you need to enter in your Polar FT4.
  • ThorneDust
    ThorneDust Posts: 189 Member
    Totally bumping this for later, I know I'm going to get a Polar when I do get a HRM.
  • dawnagetsfit
    dawnagetsfit Posts: 81
    Bump
  • toshie333
    toshie333 Posts: 295 Member
    bump
  • tlk2sprkle
    tlk2sprkle Posts: 35 Member
    Bump
  • Mamafred
    Mamafred Posts: 196 Member
    Bump - Can't wait to see what the difference is. Thanks!!
  • angbieb
    angbieb Posts: 668 Member
    bump :heart:
  • 2fit4fat
    2fit4fat Posts: 559 Member
    Bump for later
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    It shows my age as 1 year old... i have huge fat around tummy, how is that even possible?

    Some body shapes do throw off the bodyfat calculators. Where they all in close agreement by 5%?

    If they were, then the amount of fat you are carrying around is not the determining factor anyway, the bodyfat% calc allows finding out your Lean Body Mass, and the LBM is used in the more accurate BMR calc by Katch-McArdle.

    So while you may be carrying more fat, you've also got more LBM than expected for your age/weight/height.

    Good news, so if netting above that BMR calc, then your metabolism is that of a mathematical 1 yr old of your height/weight, obviously not really, but that's what the math leads to.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    My Max HR for my age on the FT4 is 175, 45 years old. This is automatic you can't change this.

    But in real life my Max HR is 195, so I change my age to 25 on the Polar FT4 this set my Max HR to 195 and set my zones correct and in fact calibrated my FT4 to me.

    The formula used by Polar for men is 220 - age. So for me that was 220-45=175.

    So if you know your maximin heart beat per minute do this 220 - Max BMP = age you need to enter in your Polar FT4.

    Right on - thanks for sharing.

    I did indeed assume that the FT4 allowed changing that stat.

    And that has bigger bearing on calorie estimate.

    For others to see your example, if you did an hr at 170 AHR, the HRM would think you were super intense, 5 away from max, like totally anaerobic burning through the carbs.

    But in reality, you would be 25 away from max, not nearly the effort it thought you were doing. In fact, 170 at that case is perhaps near your lactate threshold, so while still an intense effort, a big difference on mine. In fact, a change of 3 bpm for MHR made a 20 cal difference for an hour. Interesting to see what a 20 bpm difference makes.

    Please report back after your first compare of avg HR matching an old workout.
  • NancyMarie13
    NancyMarie13 Posts: 193 Member
    Bump for later
  • toshie333
    toshie333 Posts: 295 Member
    Bump
  • SweetStellar
    SweetStellar Posts: 4
    Gotta check my Polar!
  • jeefyl
    jeefyl Posts: 27 Member
    Bump

Categories