*Interesting * body fat testing video

[cephissus]

Insults are fun

I agree.  It's kind of like kicking someone's ass, only verbally, right?

[Henda]

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

[Hulkotron]

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.

[cephissus]

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

[Hulkotron]

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.