|
On December 13 2014 04:02 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2014 04:01 ComaDose wrote:this is the colour wheel we used i thought ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Hsv_color_circle.svg/220px-Hsv_color_circle.svg.png) Fuchia isn't a color it's a town in Pokemon with the Safari Zone fucking Canada can't separate pokemon from the real world
Requizen, you're absolutely right.
Fuchia isn't a color at all.
Note however, that Fuchsia is indeed a color. It's very similar to magenta. Also note that Fuchia is not the name of the town in Pokemon. It's actually Fuchsia.
BAM.
LEARNING EXPERIENCES.
|
#Frudgied
On December 13 2014 04:05 Frudgey wrote:
Hey guys its Friday. What does everyone have planned for this weekend?
I found out yesterday that my friend is having a birthday party tomorrow night, so I'll be going to that. Decided to use the homemade gin kit that I got for xmas last year to give to him as a gift (with the caveat that it might be awful). Got a bottle of Skyy vodka and threw juniper berries in it last night. Tonight I have to put in some holiday herbs/spices, and then I filter it tomorrow. No clue if it will be any good, but it's at least worth a shot.
|
On December 13 2014 04:09 ComaDose wrote:
okay but on your high end estimate of 150 calories a mile. you are still not burning 1k calories in an hour if you are running 10min miles. and i don't know where you are getting the number 450. skinny guys burn less no matter what they are doing is not a point against weight training.
the burn from weight lifting passively is about 600 calories over the effect and less for small guys. and you get about 110-140 from weight lifting, unless you are doing some serious beast mode shit, which we can dismiss because people trying to lose weight are likely not football players or bodybuilders.
its not a knock on weight training of course, i never said it was at all. just that, even in situations where a small guy is running, they still burn more calories than by weight lifting. period. ESPECIALLY so for people trying to lose weight, who are often overweight, and would be burning little from the passive burn of weight lifting than a man of their weight with less body fat, and burning more from running.
running > weight lifting, for calories burned. period (well not period, if you are at a very low body fat percentage, and very bulky, then lifting will burn more, but thats not what we're talking about)
if you are trying to lose weight and tone up, do both. if you are trying to gain mass, just weight lifting works fine.
On December 13 2014 04:11 jcarlsoniv wrote:
I found out yesterday that my friend is having a birthday party tomorrow night, so I'll be going to that. Decided to use the homemade gin kit that I got for xmas last year to give to him as a gift (with the caveat that it might be awful). Got a bottle of Skyy vodka and threw juniper berries in it last night. Tonight I have to put in some holiday herbs/spices, and then I filter it tomorrow. No clue if it will be any good, but it's at least worth a shot.
if you are putting juniper in vodka why not just get gin?
|
It's a kit...for the purpose of making homemade gin...with vodka.
It was a gift, I'm experimenting. Shut up.
edit - in this case, buying the 750 of Skyy vodka was cheaper than the Beefeater gin I'd normally get.
|
On December 13 2014 04:12 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2014 04:09 ComaDose wrote:
okay but on your high end estimate of 150 calories a mile. you are still not burning 1k calories in an hour if you are running 10min miles. and i don't know where you are getting the number 450. skinny guys burn less no matter what they are doing is not a point against weight training. the burn from weight lifting passively is about 600 calories over the effect and less for small guys. and you get about 110-140 from weight lifting, unless you are doing some serious beast mode shit, which we can dismiss because people trying to lose weight are likely not football players or bodybuilders. its not a knock on weight training of course, i never said it was at all. just that, even in situations where a small guy is running, they still burn more calories than by weight lifting. period. ESPECIALLY so for people trying to lose weight, who are often overweight, and would be burning little from the passive burn of weight lifting than a man of their weight with less body fat, and burning more from running. running > weight lifting, for calories burned. period. if you are trying to lose weight and tone up, do both. if you are trying to gain mass, just weight lifting works fine.
before it was 400 during 400-500 after now its 140 during 600 total. most people trying to lose weight cant run fast/hard enough to burn 1k cals in an hour running. running hard is also more prone to burning carbs and not so much fat.
why so bm with the dismissing top 10 google hits with bigfoot and saying period. repeatedly.
|
On December 13 2014 04:17 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2014 04:12 PrinceXizor wrote:On December 13 2014 04:09 ComaDose wrote:
okay but on your high end estimate of 150 calories a mile. you are still not burning 1k calories in an hour if you are running 10min miles. and i don't know where you are getting the number 450. skinny guys burn less no matter what they are doing is not a point against weight training. the burn from weight lifting passively is about 600 calories over the effect and less for small guys. and you get about 110-140 from weight lifting, unless you are doing some serious beast mode shit, which we can dismiss because people trying to lose weight are likely not football players or bodybuilders. its not a knock on weight training of course, i never said it was at all. just that, even in situations where a small guy is running, they still burn more calories than by weight lifting. period. ESPECIALLY so for people trying to lose weight, who are often overweight, and would be burning little from the passive burn of weight lifting than a man of their weight with less body fat, and burning more from running. running > weight lifting, for calories burned. period. if you are trying to lose weight and tone up, do both. if you are trying to gain mass, just weight lifting works fine. before it was 400 during 400-500 after now its 140 during 600 total. most people trying to lose weight cant run fast/hard enough to burn 1k cals in an hour running. running hard is also more prone to burning carbs and not so much fat.
it was never 400 during.
you barely burn anything doing regular weight lifting. you burn as much as sit ups and push-ups in the activity itself.
|
On December 13 2014 04:19 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2014 04:17 ComaDose wrote:On December 13 2014 04:12 PrinceXizor wrote:On December 13 2014 04:09 ComaDose wrote:
okay but on your high end estimate of 150 calories a mile. you are still not burning 1k calories in an hour if you are running 10min miles. and i don't know where you are getting the number 450. skinny guys burn less no matter what they are doing is not a point against weight training. the burn from weight lifting passively is about 600 calories over the effect and less for small guys. and you get about 110-140 from weight lifting, unless you are doing some serious beast mode shit, which we can dismiss because people trying to lose weight are likely not football players or bodybuilders. its not a knock on weight training of course, i never said it was at all. just that, even in situations where a small guy is running, they still burn more calories than by weight lifting. period. ESPECIALLY so for people trying to lose weight, who are often overweight, and would be burning little from the passive burn of weight lifting than a man of their weight with less body fat, and burning more from running. running > weight lifting, for calories burned. period. if you are trying to lose weight and tone up, do both. if you are trying to gain mass, just weight lifting works fine. before it was 400 during 400-500 after now its 140 during 600 total. most people trying to lose weight cant run fast/hard enough to burn 1k cals in an hour running. running hard is also more prone to burning carbs and not so much fat. it was never 400 during. you barely burn anything doing regular weight lifting. you burn as much as sit ups and push-ups.
...I'm beginning to feel like you've never actually done regular work outs
|
On December 13 2014 04:20 jcarlsoniv wrote:
...I'm beginning to feel like you've never actually done regular work outs
No im serious dude, you don't burn much in the act of weight training itself.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On December 13 2014 04:04 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2014 04:03 Alzadar wrote:On December 13 2014 04:01 ComaDose wrote:this is the colour wheel we used i thought I think this has something to do with computer colours being measured in RGB values, so Green is a primary colour instead of yellow. Correct. Pigment and light have differing primaries.
Wait, what? My understanding of light was:
humans have 3 different cells in eyes, one absorbs mainly green light, another absorbs mainly blue light and another absorbs mainly red light, but they all absorbs all light to some degree. So if we see actual yellow light, it's because both red and green cells react a little bit. Thanks to this, we can trick our eyes, because we can't tell the difference between yellow light and a little bit of green + a little bit of red light. This is why we use the RGB spectrum for colours.
What does pigment and light having different primaries mean?
|
On December 13 2014 04:21 Scip wrote:
What does pigment and light having different primaries mean?
yellow red and blue are the primary colors for pigmentation. where yellow and blue make green. the light spectrum is always the RGB, but when mixing paints or dyes or something. blue and yellow make green, not red and green making yellow.
|
On December 13 2014 04:19 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2014 04:17 ComaDose wrote:On December 13 2014 04:12 PrinceXizor wrote:On December 13 2014 04:09 ComaDose wrote:
okay but on your high end estimate of 150 calories a mile. you are still not burning 1k calories in an hour if you are running 10min miles. and i don't know where you are getting the number 450. skinny guys burn less no matter what they are doing is not a point against weight training. the burn from weight lifting passively is about 600 calories over the effect and less for small guys. and you get about 110-140 from weight lifting, unless you are doing some serious beast mode shit, which we can dismiss because people trying to lose weight are likely not football players or bodybuilders. its not a knock on weight training of course, i never said it was at all. just that, even in situations where a small guy is running, they still burn more calories than by weight lifting. period. ESPECIALLY so for people trying to lose weight, who are often overweight, and would be burning little from the passive burn of weight lifting than a man of their weight with less body fat, and burning more from running. running > weight lifting, for calories burned. period. if you are trying to lose weight and tone up, do both. if you are trying to gain mass, just weight lifting works fine. before it was 400 during 400-500 after now its 140 during 600 total. most people trying to lose weight cant run fast/hard enough to burn 1k cals in an hour running. running hard is also more prone to burning carbs and not so much fat. it was never 400 during. you barely burn anything doing regular weight lifting. you burn as much as sit ups and push-ups in the activity itself.
On December 13 2014 02:19 PrinceXizor wrote:
an hour of weightlifting is 400 with an extra 400-500 over the rest of the day.
|
On December 13 2014 04:21 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2014 02:19 PrinceXizor wrote:
an hour of weightlifting is 400 with an extra 400-500 over the rest of the day.
then that was a mistake of mine probably from using my tablet to swipe-type instead of using a keyboard.
|
On December 13 2014 04:20 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2014 04:19 PrinceXizor wrote:On December 13 2014 04:17 ComaDose wrote:On December 13 2014 04:12 PrinceXizor wrote:On December 13 2014 04:09 ComaDose wrote:
okay but on your high end estimate of 150 calories a mile. you are still not burning 1k calories in an hour if you are running 10min miles. and i don't know where you are getting the number 450. skinny guys burn less no matter what they are doing is not a point against weight training. the burn from weight lifting passively is about 600 calories over the effect and less for small guys. and you get about 110-140 from weight lifting, unless you are doing some serious beast mode shit, which we can dismiss because people trying to lose weight are likely not football players or bodybuilders. its not a knock on weight training of course, i never said it was at all. just that, even in situations where a small guy is running, they still burn more calories than by weight lifting. period. ESPECIALLY so for people trying to lose weight, who are often overweight, and would be burning little from the passive burn of weight lifting than a man of their weight with less body fat, and burning more from running. running > weight lifting, for calories burned. period. if you are trying to lose weight and tone up, do both. if you are trying to gain mass, just weight lifting works fine. before it was 400 during 400-500 after now its 140 during 600 total. most people trying to lose weight cant run fast/hard enough to burn 1k cals in an hour running. running hard is also more prone to burning carbs and not so much fat. it was never 400 during. you barely burn anything doing regular weight lifting. you burn as much as sit ups and push-ups. ...I'm beginning to feel like you've never actually done regular work outs
Anyone who's ever broken a sweat while lifting weights is faking just to try to prove PX wrong.
|
On December 13 2014 04:24 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2014 04:21 ComaDose wrote:On December 13 2014 02:19 PrinceXizor wrote:
an hour of weightlifting is 400 with an extra 400-500 over the rest of the day. then that was a mistake of mine probably from using my tablet to swipe-type instead of using a keyboard.
Alright well I really think you are underplaying weight lifting and exaggerating how much a person burns from an hour of running. And I cant find any sources that agree with you but im down to agree to disagree. I am not the most knowledable about this in the thread.
|
On December 13 2014 04:21 Scip wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2014 04:04 Gahlo wrote:On December 13 2014 04:03 Alzadar wrote:On December 13 2014 04:01 ComaDose wrote:this is the colour wheel we used i thought I think this has something to do with computer colours being measured in RGB values, so Green is a primary colour instead of yellow. Correct. Pigment and light have differing primaries. Wait, what? My understanding of light was: humans have 3 different cells in eyes, one absorbs mainly green light, another absorbs mainly blue light and another absorbs mainly red light, but they all absorbs all light to some degree. So if we see actual yellow light, it's because both red and green cells react a little bit. Thanks to this, we can trick our eyes, because we can't tell the difference between yellow light and a little bit of green + a little bit of red light. This is why we use the RGB spectrum for colours. What does pigment and light having different primaries mean?
Pigments and light work differently in that light is additive in that white light contains all spectrum. Pigments are subtractive in that a surface absorbs the specific wavelength thus reflecting the remainder. That's why the primaries are different in the two. An example of this is by using RGB. A surface would absorb the red wavelength and emit cyan. This is how we get cyan, magenta, and yellow as our primaries for pigments.
So if you shine white light on a surface that appears red that means it's absorbing everything but red. Likewise if you shine a green light it should appear black. At least that's what my shoddy wave theory suggests. I fucking hate waves.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
Oh, right. I used to know that. :3
|
Speaking of which, where is he? Did he say he was sick or something?
|
On December 13 2014 04:27 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2014 04:24 PrinceXizor wrote:On December 13 2014 04:21 ComaDose wrote:On December 13 2014 02:19 PrinceXizor wrote:
an hour of weightlifting is 400 with an extra 400-500 over the rest of the day. then that was a mistake of mine probably from using my tablet to swipe-type instead of using a keyboard. Alright well I really think you are underplaying weight lifting and exaggerating how much a person burns from an hour of running. And I cant find any sources that agree with you but im down to agree to disagree. I am not the most knowledable about this in the thread.
one of my old roommates is a PT, and suggested the calculator used by glamour for calories burned, but to know it was inaccurate by as much as 25% in either direction, depending on how much you are resting in the activity, and how strenuously you are doing the activity. which is the one i used for the numbers, here.
the metabolic calorie burning is not listed in that, and it also assumes you take no rest between sets for weight lifting. so its not good for totaling, and generally overshoots the amount burned IN the activity, because no one in their right mind weight trains with no rest between sets.
|
On December 13 2014 04:31 Alzadar wrote:
Speaking of which, where is he? Did he say he was sick or something?
he's alive
I'll let him post more info if he wishes
|
I invented a new term:
Shitput - when you have to build a system around a user's input style or output expectations, but that input/output is fucking garbage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
