Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Thong Maniac on April 24, 2016, 11:21:53 AM
-
very interesting results. however, the calorie assumptions by the guy seem way off. TDEE for the guy is 3400 cals (with no training involved). i call total bullshit on that.
also, if he is 13, im probably 15 or 16 percent....shit
-
They don't factor in excessive water retention, it's just your total bodyweight and fat weight. So if he went back and held in a shitload of water, his bodyfat % will actually go down, while looking even worse.
-
They don't factor in excessive water retention, it's just your total bodyweight and fat weight. So if he went back and held in a shitload of water, his bodyfat % will actually go down, while looking even worse.
wait, so you say they DONT factor it in, yet your second sentence you say they DO factor it in? im confused
-
wait, so you say they DONT factor it in, yet your second sentence you say they DO factor it in? im confused
well, I guess I should've said factor out. :P
-
Very interesting and comprehensive video. I guessed the leaner folks body fat percentage more accurately then the others.
-
very interesting results. however, the calorie assumptions by the guy seem way off. TDEE for the guy is 3400 cals (with no training involved). i call total bullshit on that.
also, if he is 13, im probably 15 or 16 percent....shit
His oversimplification of weight loss annoys me. It is very difficult to lose muscle mass if your diet and training frequency/intensity/volume is adjusted properly.
-
::)
I found all of the "accurate estimates" to be inaccurate and very wrong. You have some of those fat asses without much muscle having more muscle than a Prime Arnold Schwarzenegger if you run the numbers.
Total bullshit.
-
That kind of study would be fun and beneficial for people wanting an accurate idea of their caloric need.
It'd be interesting to see what BF percentages the test gave for GetBiggers always claiming low bofyfat.
-
His oversimplification of weight loss annoys me. It is very difficult to lose muscle mass if your diet and training frequency/intensity/volume is adjusted properly.
This is true, but most people are not interested in weight training or even athletic level training, they just want to lose weight. Some folks will take up walking or running to help burn more calories and be more fit. For them, the advice given in the video is right on. Many bodybuilders are more concerned about muscle mass and somewhat less concerned about their general good health.
-
How about the guys that diet down on 2500 to 3000 cals and stop because they think they're losing too much muscle? lol. These clowns could eat 12-1500cals a day and not lose any muscle. They're delusional about the amount of muscle they have in the first place...
-
How about the guys that diet down on 2500 to 3000 cals and stop because they think they're losing too much muscle? lol. These clowns could eat 12-1500cals a day and not lose any muscle. They're delusional about the amount of muscle they have in the first place...
True. You gotta have it before you can lose it.
-
1000 net calories from daily activity (no exercise) is way way way too high, even for someone who weighs 222 lbs. That's the equivalent of running about seven miles or walking about 15 miles.
BB related: how many of you would hit any of those first three wildebeasts he trotted out?
-
1000 net calories from daily activity (no exercise) is way way way too high, even for someone who weighs 222 lbs. That's the equivalent of running about seven miles or walking about 15 miles.
BB related: how many of you would hit any of those first three wildebeasts he trotted out?
Plugged my height, age, and weight into a BMR calculator and it came up with 1800+
-
1000 net calories from daily activity (no exercise) is way way way too high, even for someone who weighs 222 lbs. That's the equivalent of running about seven miles or walking about 15 miles.
Truph.
-
Plugged my height, age, and weight into a BMR calculator and it came up with 1800+
BMR and net calories from activity are entirely different things "doctor".
-
BMR and net calories from activity are entirely different things "doctor".
I re-watched the section and initially misheard the guy.
-
1000 net calories from daily activity (no exercise) is way way way too high, even for someone who weighs 222 lbs. That's the equivalent of running about seven miles or walking about 15 miles.
BB related: how many of you would hit any of those first three wildebeasts he trotted out?
Rachel looked thick in a good way. Would hit like a wrecking ball: a big bang and over in half a second.
-
1000 net calories from daily activity (no exercise) is way way way too high, even for someone who weighs 222 lbs. That's the equivalent of running about seven miles or walking about 15 miles.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
go get a vo2max test and then re-evaluate
-
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
go get a vo2max test and then re-evaluate
Did someone piss in your Cheerios little fella? Why the aggression/frustration towards this harmless post?
Have my words injured you in the past?
-
Did someone piss in your Cheerios little fella? Why the aggression/frustration towards this harmless post?
Have my words injured you in the past?
I've observed him do this quite often, I believe cesspit has deep rooted insecurities caused by the massive shame he feels over the fact that he once suffered from anorexia, an illness normally only affecting women and fags, this manifests itself as regular angry outbursts on any diet related post
-
I've observed him do this quite often, I believe cesspit has deep rooted insecurities caused by the massive shame he feels over the fact that he once suffered from anorexia, an illness normally only affecting women and fags, this manifests itself as regular angry outbursts on any diet related post
:D
very well put
-
I've observed him do this quite often, I believe cesspit has deep rooted insecurities caused by the massive shame he feels over the fact that he once suffered from anorexia, an illness normally only affecting women and fags, this manifests itself as regular angry outbursts on any diet related post
not ashamed at all, and like most people on this board and in the bbing community, i share a lot in common with women and fags.
on the other hand, the haphazard numbers and nonsense advice that gets thrown around in these discussions certainly helped me along my path, hence my irritation. hell, you don't even need a vo2max... anyone who thinks a 222 lb man will burn 1000 cals from a 15 mile walk only needs to spend a few days with a fitbit to see how delusional they are.
speaking of insecurities, i wonder why you, yamcha, and jeff enjoy insulting me for anorexia and, seemingly, no other reason?
-
not ashamed at all, and like most people on this board and in the bbing community, i share a lot in common with women and fags.
on the other hand, the haphazard numbers and nonsense advice that gets thrown around in these discussions certainly helped me along my path, hence my irritation. hell, you don't even need a vo2max... anyone who thinks a 222 lb man will burn 1000 cals from a 15 mile walk only needs to spend a few days with a fitbit to see how delusional they are.
speaking of insecurities, i wonder why you, yamcha, and jeff enjoy insulting me for anorexia and, seemingly, no other reason?
ceph, is 1000 cals for a 15 mile walk too high or too low? Im under the impression that no one needs 1000 extra cals over their BMR even with weight training involved
-
not ashamed at all, and like most people on this board and in the bbing community, i share a lot in common with women and fags.
on the other hand, the haphazard numbers and nonsense advice that gets thrown around in these discussions certainly helped me along my path, hence my irritation. hell, you don't even need a vo2max... anyone who thinks a 222 lb man will burn 1000 cals from a 15 mile walk only needs to spend a few days with a fitbit to see how delusional they are.
speaking of insecurities, i wonder why you, yamcha, and jeff enjoy insulting me for anorexia and, seemingly, no other reason?
Insults are fun
-
not ashamed at all, and like most people on this board and in the bbing community, i share a lot in common with women and fags.
speaking of insecurities, i wonder why you, yamcha, and jeff enjoy insulting me for anorexia and, seemingly, no other reason?
Do anorexics recover or just go into a type of remission? Aren't anorexia and extreme bodybuilding both the result suffering body dysmorphic disorder (BDD)?
Nor should you be ashamed. You called it right for a lot of folks on this board and in the bodybuilding community. It would be interesting to know exactly what you feel they and you have in common with women and fags.
-
Insults are fun
I agree. It's kind of like kicking someone's ass, only verbally, right?
-
I agree. It's kind of like kicking someone's ass, only verbally, right?
not really, at least I don't see it that way, it's just daft carry on, nowt malicious
-
not ashamed at all, and like most people on this board and in the bbing community, i share a lot in common with women and fags.
on the other hand, the haphazard numbers and nonsense advice that gets thrown around in these discussions certainly helped me along my path, hence my irritation. hell, you don't even need a vo2max... anyone who thinks a 222 lb man will burn 1000 cals from a 15 mile walk only needs to spend a few days with a fitbit to see how delusional they are.
speaking of insecurities, i wonder why you, yamcha, and jeff enjoy insulting me for anorexia and, seemingly, no other reason?
You picked the wrong tree to bark up here little fella.
Rather than just spouting vitriol and insults, and assuming you actually understand the terminology I'm using and that the video used, you could present some evidence demonstrating how "delusional" I am. For example, attached is a figure from a recent peer-reviewed study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27015387) showing that your homoerotic "Fitbit" overestimates calories in walking by an average of over 60%.
Here's the widely-used ACSM estimation equation I used to make my estimate: net calories walking = 0.3*weight*miles = 0.3*222*15 = 999 calories
Now that estimate isn't meant to be exact, but the largest estimate I can find for this with any online calculator is about 1500 calories, and most are in the 1000-1200 range. Far from any reasonable definition of "delusional". Or pretend I said 13 miles if it dislodges any sand from your overly-tender vagina.
My suspicion is you don't actually know what "net" calories are and likely are misunderstanding the numbers your "Fitbit" is actually telling you, despite thinking you sound smart throwing around terms like "vo2max".
Hopefully you will take this as an opportunity to better educate yourself. Unfortunately, my suspicion is you'll likely just take it as an opportunity to continue being an insufferable girl.
-
You picked the wrong tree to bark up here little fella.
Rather than just spouting vitriol and insults, and assuming you actually understand the terminology I'm using and that the video used, you could present some evidence demonstrating how "delusional" I am. For example, attached is a figure from a recent peer-reviewed study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27015387) showing that your homoerotic "Fitbit" overestimates calories in walking by an average of over 60%.
Here's the widely-used ACSM estimation equation I used to make my estimate: net calories walking = 0.3*weight*miles = 0.3*222*15 = 999 calories
Now that estimate isn't meant to be exact, but the largest estimate I can find for this with any online calculator is about 1500 calories, and most are in the 1000-1200 range. Far from any reasonable definition of "delusional". Or pretend I said 13 miles if it dislodges any sand from your overly-tender vagina.
My suspicion is you don't actually know what "net" calories are and likely are misunderstanding the numbers your "Fitbit" is actually telling you, despite thinking you sound smart throwing around terms like "vo2max".
Hopefully you will take this as an opportunity to better educate yourself. Unfortunately, my suspicion is you'll likely just take it as an opportunity to continue being an insufferable girl.
the widely used ACSM equation which is based on a static constant, or the fitbit which measures heartrate... hmmm
overestimates by an average of 60%?
All PA monitors predicted EE within 8% of COSMED for sedentary activity but overestimated EE by 16-40% during ambulatory activity. All monitors except the Fitbit Flex (within 8% of criterion) underestimated EE by 27-34% during household activity. EE predictions were accompanied with MAPE >10%. For household activity, the Fitbit Flex estimated steps within 10% of researcher-counted steps; all other monitors underestimated steps by 35-64%. All monitors estimated steps within 4% of researcher-counted steps and displayed MAPE <10% during ambulatory activity. The Omron underestimated household steps by 74% but was within 1% for ambulatory steps. All monitors severely underestimated EE and steps during cycling.
comparing my fitbit to powermeter (probably the most accurate of the widely available means of measuring caloric expenditure), the fitbit usually registers a 100-200 calories higher over a 2-2.5 hour period -- maybe as it calculates net expenditure ::)
also i was an acsm cpt (absolute joke of an organization, btw). couldn't find your .3 * BW * M equation, but google repeatedly shows:
VO2 = .1 * S + 1.8 * S * G + 3.5
where VO2 is in ml/kg/min and speed is in MPH
lets take 3.0 mph and 1 average grade -- not unreasonable, if walking outdoors
222 = 101kg
.1 * 3 + 1.8 * 3 * 1.0 + 3.5 = 9.2 ml
.3 + 5.4 + 3.5
9.2 * 101 = .93 L/m or 4.7 kcal/m
3.0 mph = 20 min mile
20 * 4.7 = 94 kcals
15 * 94 = 1410
-
Your Google-based education isn't going to be enough to win this one little guy.
overestimates by an average of 60%?
You would have to actually read the article (not the abstract) to see this result. Guessing you don't do a lot of that, although I was nice enough to post the figure for you, which you seem to be having trouble understanding.
comparing my fitbit to powermeter (probably the most accurate of the widely available means of measuring caloric expenditure), the fitbit usually registers a 100-200 calories higher over a 2-2.5 hour period -- maybe as it calculates net expenditure ::)
lol
also i was an acsm cpt (absolute joke of an organization, btw). couldn't find your .3 * BW * M equation, but google repeatedly shows:
So you've (a) never heard of the well-known thumb rule for estimating this and (b) don't know the search terms to find it. Sounds like you're in over your head.
Ignoring the rest of your little mathematical meltdown.