IndyDDR.com

Merk wrote:Welp, I bought 2 Colts season tickets for $700 each. They are not good seats.

What the fuck is wrong with me?

.........weeowwww

I know....

In all fairness I have never been to a game and I can always scalp them if I need to, it's not like I haven't pissed away money before on things like Drummania cabinets and craps tables. I justified it as, "Well, the EVO trip got canceled this year I guess I can comfortably afford this!"

Merk wrote:I know....

In all fairness I have never been to a game and I can always scalp them if I need to, it's not like I haven't pissed away money before on things like Drummania cabinets and craps tables. I justified it as, "Well, the EVO trip got canceled this year I guess I can comfortably afford this!"

Are you investing at all?

Not currently, my 401k options kick in after 1000 days of employment (I know, it's shitty) at which point I'll be investing. Right now my retirement plan is Chase Freedom Rewards points lololololol

Merk wrote:Not currently, my 401k options kick in after 1000 days of employment (I know, it's shitty) at which point I'll be investing. Right now my retirement plan is Chase Freedom Rewards points lololololol

You should consider branching out from just 401k. It's a good choice, especially if your company matches.

I'm planning on moving my mutual fund from when I was a wee lad to something like a 30 year Vanguard index fund for a better long term return. The problem is rates are pretty shitty these days across the board.

I was listening to an investment adviser on NPR the other day and he was talking about how only a tiny percentage of index mutual funds these days end up paying out a better return than a simple CD would

Potter wrote:I was listening to an investment adviser on NPR the other day and he was talking about how only a tiny percentage of index mutual funds these days end up paying out a better return than a simple CD would

Aren't CD rates garbage?

....yup

I am not an investor nor do I pay much attention to this stuff but what the fuck is a CD and how can I get on this sweet gravy train?

It stands for compact disc. They're these little, skinny, round things that you can write and read data to/from.
They sell them in packs of like 100 for like $20 at Wal-Mart it's a steal!

Reposting from my Facebook to get other opinions:

"So following up with the post I made a while ago about how many calories DDR burns on average, I wore a heart monitor for my 45-50 minute session today. After about 21 songs (two 10 footers, four or five of the more difficult 9 footers, and the rest normal 7 and 8 footers), my calories burned came out to be 613/43% fat. If you average all of this out it comes out to about 29 calories per song, assuming you play enough 9s/10s to get your heart rate up. My maximum heart rate was 205 (probably during Paranoia Survivor Max), and my average was about 145, considering that there's downtime as you select songs in between.

This is pretty much in line with my original thinking. The 7s and 8s burn probably about 15 calories, while the difficult 9s and 10s probably burn in the 30-35 range. I've heard studies that people burn 10-15 calories per song, which makes sense since I'm guessing the testers aren't playing the most difficult stuff like I try to on a regular basis. These numbers relate to my height/weight though, so mileage may vary... but it seems about right, at least compared to calories burned on treadmills for similar amounts of time I'd say."

Opinions? Is my science wrong?!

Decent estimate; better than the 10,000 calories per session that the ITG memory card system likes to tell me.

Of course it's going to depend on factors like your resting heart rate, metabolism, etc. I'm wondering how you derived the fat % or what you're interpreting that as.

Also.

SoDeepPolaris wrote:Decent estimate; better than the 10,000 calories per session that the ITG memory card system likes to tell me.

Of course it's going to depend on factors like your resting heart rate, metabolism, etc. I'm wondering how you derived the fat % or what you're interpreting that as.

Also.

I'm just listing what the little heart monitor watch told me. I had the little connector around my chest and it sent the data to the watch. At the end when I stopped it, it said 613 cal/43% fat on the screen. I don't know exactly what that means though is the thing. 42% of the calories lost is going to fat burning? I dunno.

Riot wrote:

SoDeepPolaris wrote:Decent estimate; better than the 10,000 calories per session that the ITG memory card system likes to tell me.

Of course it's going to depend on factors like your resting heart rate, metabolism, etc. I'm wondering how you derived the fat % or what you're interpreting that as.

Also.

I'm just listing what the little heart monitor watch told me. I had the little connector around my chest and it sent the data to the watch. At the end when I stopped it, it said 613 cal/43% fat on the screen. I don't know exactly what that means though is the thing. 42% of the calories lost is going to fat burning? I dunno.

The idea is that you burn a higher percentage of fat per calorie at low intensity (lower heart rate, longer period) while you tend to burn more calories with high intensity and thus probably more fat despite less fat/calorie efficiency. It has to do with accessibility of energy sources (glycogen, glucose, fat, etc.) and how quickly your body can metabolize them.

I don't know what formula it's using but I wouldn't give it too much credence. Consistent weighing (same time of day) and mirin' in the mirror for a month will tell you more about changes in body composition than the percentage will tell ya. The heart rate is good data, though.