Calories

[hbear]

Oh, no I understand the physics part of it and I'm not necessarily questioning the formula because I 100% agree that it makes sense. What amazes me is that a 200 lb man and a 150 lb man exercising the same would result in the 200lb man burning more energy, yet we are not seeing the population as a whole reaching an weight equilibrium. I realize that a major factor is what the person eats, but still, it's interesting to me.

 

Lots of factors....too many to list.

But the major thing in regards to activity is although it DOES show that a 200lb person and 150lb person doing the exact same thing expend the energy for a particular exercise. Research shows that for "activity" that obese 200lb person does get any "advantage" for is nulled. Keep in mind this "advantage" in energy expenditure only occurs during weight bearing activities, and keep in mind it has a double edge. More energy expended doing the same activity leads to that person doing less of that activity...

E.g. The more difficult it is for you to walk.....the less you do. If a flight of stairs feels like you are going to go into cardiac arrest...I'd wager one would wait for the elevator.

 

Remember this is activity cost per activity unit only, although there is a significant different in the activity levels between a "muscular" 200lb person and an "obese" 200lb person over the course of the day....(hence one variable as to why one is obese and the other muscular)....whenever we look to energy cost of an activity we are still looking at activity cost per unit and really cannot infer farther then that from what it is.

 

Remember activity cost per activity unit....we are not getting into total activity, metabolic costs at rest, metabolic efficiency, blood profiles, at all. Nor are we going into caloric intake (the biggest factor in the obesity epidemic) and the composition of those calories.

 

The one part that has me a bit confused is that you are using 2 hours as the time measurement to walk/play 18 holes. I realize that if a golfer was walking at a constant pace of 3 mph, the person SHOULD walk the distance of 18 holes in 2 hours resulting in the 550 calorie number. The activity itself isn't a constant walk and I have known very few people able to walk/play 18 holes in 2 hours which would mean that there are other actions that consume time and energy. In other words, I would have to believe the calorie expenditure of this activity includes other time consuming actions that would result in additional energy expenditure (you mentioned this above, but believed it would be negligible). Thus is 2 hours the proper time measure? A flat 2 hours might be used for walking the distance, but what of the other 1-2 hours spent playing the game? According to the calculations using METS, if one were to believe that this figure is based on the total energy expenditure of walking & playing the game, the time factor would be greatly affected. If the average person spends 3-4 hours to walk and play 18 holes, the number would closer to 850-1100 calories.

 

Also, some other factors that are in question, do we always walking a straight line from tee to green? Are we assuming no distance between holes?

 

I factored not walking in a straight line in my equation....how many courses do you play that are 10,000 yards (almost 10km which is 6 miles)? Majority of players play from under 7000 yards...so we are accounting for almost 50% "extra" yardage for green to tee, and misc.

 

As for the activity itself....I think it would be fair to say that about 50% or more of the time playing golf is played in a waiting state. Waiting for the other 3 guys in the group to play their shots, determining club/shot selection, lining up putts, etc. This "time" should not be factored into the "Activity cost" because while you are doing it you are in a rest state.

 

Yes you are correct few people can play/walk a course in 2 hours....but that does not mean they are being "active in a metabolic sense" that entire time.

The pace I had used for walking (3miles/hour) is an average walking pace. Not brisk by any means.

 

In class we often did time motion analysis studies. Where we timed start of a movement to it's end, and counted the repetitions over the course of an activity to come up with a time of motion number.

For golf we assumed a golfer took 100 strokes. 36 putt average which leaves us with 64 "strikes" at the ball. The time of swing from initiation to end follow through is super short (less than a second). So even if we used 1sec/swing, at 64 swings, a golfer is swing active for just over 1 minute over the course of a round. Even with an impossibly slow swing of 3s, that's still only 3-3.5 minutes of "Swing activity".

We didn't count putts as, well putting energy cost is not much different than standing energy cost.

So essentially 1 or so minutes of "activity" for the swing......like I said before negligible. But we still gave it some value 70 kcal to account for "anything else."

 

Bottom line is the majority of activity time with play/walking a golf course is from the walking component. Not from the swing, nor from raking a trap, or anything like that....simply walking.

Hence why walking time (plus 70kcal for misc. activity) was used.

Like I said before with golf you can't just take a value like walking and multiply it by the time it takes to play golf (4-4.5 hours) because of the significant amount of rest involved.

If you do you overestimate the activity cost significantly....which is what I feel has been done with the values that are in the 1000-2000+ ranges. (unless the person was 300-500+lbs)

 

To put it in perspective....a 150lb person running @ a pace of around 6mins/mile (world record is 3mins 43s/mile) would have to run for about 1 hour to expend 1100kcal, 2 hours to expend about 2200kcal....

 

I hope that helps!

:)

 

hbear

 

I was wondering how long it would take the rest of the posters in here to to actually read what you have written here. :D ;)

 

Haha, perhaps?

I just wanted to get the information out seeing I have training in the area...didn't mean for the posts to get so long....it certainly didn't take me that long to type.

 

Obviously I have a passion for the subject matter!!! Which is great since I really love what I do!

:alcoholic:

[Skaffa77]

hbear - Very nice explaination (I was waiting for it). I appreciate your detailed perspective. As you can tell, I have a huge interest in this topic (fitness) as well.

 

The main discrepency I think we both agree on is that the measure used in many sources may not accurately represent the energy expenditure used for the average person's time to perform the task (walking 18 holes of golf). Outside of many sources stating that you burn roughly 1100-1200 calories for walking 18 holes (time not provided - just activity), most of us do not have enough of the technical knowledge (or patience) to perform the calculations outside of using a simple conversion calculator on the web.

 

Unfortunately, most people will use average time (3.5-4 hours) to perform the activity and the measure (if not accurate) used to represent energy expenditure will overstate the value.

 

Again - I appreciate your responses.

[ej002]

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, "[T]he calories expended in walking a golf course (about five miles) [is] approximately 500 calories." PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 687 (2001). So you guys both lose!

 

:D

 

 

LOL, I just had to put this in here, I just came across it. I guess Martin's expert doctor testified to this, to make the point that walking does inject fatigue; and therefore, is not outcome determinative or fundamental to champion golf. Interesting stuff, all I have to say is that after walking 18, I am always tired. I doubt I would be that tired if I only expended 300-500 calories, less than a fourth or fifith of my total intake for the day. Working out or running does not make me that tired.

[MrParr1Noid]

Oh, no I understand the physics part of it and I'm not necessarily questioning the formula because I 100% agree that it makes sense. What amazes me is that a 200 lb man and a 150 lb man exercising the same would result in the 200lb man burning more energy, yet we are not seeing the population as a whole reaching an weight equilibrium. I realize that a major factor is what the person eats, but still, it's interesting to me.

 

Lots of factors....too many to list.

But the major thing in regards to activity is although it DOES show that a 200lb person and 150lb person doing the exact same thing expend the energy for a particular exercise. Research shows that for "activity" that obese 200lb person does get any "advantage" for is nulled. Keep in mind this "advantage" in energy expenditure only occurs during weight bearing activities, and keep in mind it has a double edge. More energy expended doing the same activity leads to that person doing less of that activity...

E.g. The more difficult it is for you to walk.....the less you do. If a flight of stairs feels like you are going to go into cardiac arrest...I'd wager one would wait for the elevator.

 

Remember this is activity cost per activity unit only, although there is a significant different in the activity levels between a "muscular" 200lb person and an "obese" 200lb person over the course of the day....(hence one variable as to why one is obese and the other muscular)....whenever we look to energy cost of an activity we are still looking at activity cost per unit and really cannot infer farther then that from what it is.

 

Remember activity cost per activity unit....we are not getting into total activity, metabolic costs at rest, metabolic efficiency, blood profiles, at all. Nor are we going into caloric intake (the biggest factor in the obesity epidemic) and the composition of those calories.

 

The one part that has me a bit confused is that you are using 2 hours as the time measurement to walk/play 18 holes. I realize that if a golfer was walking at a constant pace of 3 mph, the person SHOULD walk the distance of 18 holes in 2 hours resulting in the 550 calorie number. The activity itself isn't a constant walk and I have known very few people able to walk/play 18 holes in 2 hours which would mean that there are other actions that consume time and energy. In other words, I would have to believe the calorie expenditure of this activity includes other time consuming actions that would result in additional energy expenditure (you mentioned this above, but believed it would be negligible). Thus is 2 hours the proper time measure? A flat 2 hours might be used for walking the distance, but what of the other 1-2 hours spent playing the game? According to the calculations using METS, if one were to believe that this figure is based on the total energy expenditure of walking & playing the game, the time factor would be greatly affected. If the average person spends 3-4 hours to walk and play 18 holes, the number would closer to 850-1100 calories.

 

Also, some other factors that are in question, do we always walking a straight line from tee to green? Are we assuming no distance between holes?

 

I factored not walking in a straight line in my equation....how many courses do you play that are 10,000 yards (almost 10km which is 6 miles)? Majority of players play from under 7000 yards...so we are accounting for almost 50% "extra" yardage for green to tee, and misc.

 

As for the activity itself....I think it would be fair to say that about 50% or more of the time playing golf is played in a waiting state. Waiting for the other 3 guys in the group to play their shots, determining club/shot selection, lining up putts, etc. This "time" should not be factored into the "Activity cost" because while you are doing it you are in a rest state.

 

Yes you are correct few people can play/walk a course in 2 hours....but that does not mean they are being "active in a metabolic sense" that entire time.

The pace I had used for walking (3miles/hour) is an average walking pace. Not brisk by any means.

 

In class we often did time motion analysis studies. Where we timed start of a movement to it's end, and counted the repetitions over the course of an activity to come up with a time of motion number.

For golf we assumed a golfer took 100 strokes. 36 putt average which leaves us with 64 "strikes" at the ball. The time of swing from initiation to end follow through is super short (less than a second). So even if we used 1sec/swing, at 64 swings, a golfer is swing active for just over 1 minute over the course of a round. Even with an impossibly slow swing of 3s, that's still only 3-3.5 minutes of "Swing activity".

We didn't count putts as, well putting energy cost is not much different than standing energy cost.

So essentially 1 or so minutes of "activity" for the swing......like I said before negligible. But we still gave it some value 70 kcal to account for "anything else."

 

Bottom line is the majority of activity time with play/walking a golf course is from the walking component. Not from the swing, nor from raking a trap, or anything like that....simply walking.

Hence why walking time (plus 70kcal for misc. activity) was used.

Like I said before with golf you can't just take a value like walking and multiply it by the time it takes to play golf (4-4.5 hours) because of the significant amount of rest involved.

If you do you overestimate the activity cost significantly....which is what I feel has been done with the values that are in the 1000-2000+ ranges. (unless the person was 300-500+lbs)

 

To put it in perspective....a 150lb person running @ a pace of around 6mins/mile (world record is 3mins 43s/mile) would have to run for about 1 hour to expend 1100kcal, 2 hours to expend about 2200kcal....

 

I hope that helps!

;)

 

hbear

 

I was wondering how long it would take the rest of the posters in here to to actually read what you have written here. :D :alcoholic:

 

Haha, perhaps?

I just wanted to get the information out seeing I have training in the area...didn't mean for the posts to get so long....it certainly didn't take me that long to type.

 

Obviously I have a passion for the subject matter!!! Which is great since I really love what I do!

:cheesy:

 

As I re: read my own post here, it sound like I'm saying that your post is long winded, when in fact, what I'm really trying to convey is....guys need to read your post so as to better understand the amount of calories being expended in a round of golf. :)

[hbear]

According to the Supreme Court of the United States, "[T]he calories expended in walking a golf course (about five miles) [is] approximately 500 calories." PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 687 (2001). So you guys both lose!

 

:D

 

Haha that smiley guy is awesome! Didn't see that guy in the list!

500 for 5 miles....I estimated a bit under 600 for 6 miles....not far off!

 

:)

[Skaffa77]

You know so much of the confusion comes from the various sources that people read. If you look about halfway down the articles on both links, these "sources" give nearly a 2000 calorie expenditure for the activity. One was pulled from a Golf Digest article (2002) and the other is from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

 

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HF..._53/ai_86204881

 

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburgh...h/s_512754.html

 

 

Most people wouldn't give it much more thought and just accept this as fact. Hbear has provided enough information to help me realize that I can't simply trust the number given, but I have to agree with ej002 that I generally feel fairly spent after walking 18 holes (more so than my normal gym workouts).

 

Oh well. Whatever the number, there is a derived physical benefit to walking versus riding a cart and I don't plan to let golf substitute my normal gym workouts (that often). :bb2:

[thatswhatshesaid]

I can save you all a lot of time and typing. Go buy a bodybugg, strap it on your arm, download the data, and find out yourself how many calories you burn - all day, every day - whether you're on the golf course or not. It's the most accurate calorie monitoring system out there - just ask the Biggest Loser contestants (they all wear them).

 

Find out more at www.bodybugg.com

[hbear]

I can save you all a lot of time and typing. Go buy a bodybugg, strap it on your arm, download the data, and find out yourself how many calories you burn - all day, every day - whether you're on the golf course or not. It's the most accurate calorie monitoring system out there - just ask the Biggest Loser contestants (they all wear them).

 

Find out more at www.bodybugg.com

 

You are joking right???

 

:bb2:

[Skaffa77]

I can save you all a lot of time and typing. Go buy a bodybugg, strap it on your arm, download the data, and find out yourself how many calories you burn - all day, every day - whether you're on the golf course or not. It's the most accurate calorie monitoring system out there - just ask the Biggest Loser contestants (they all wear them).

 

Find out more at www.bodybugg.com

 

I can't say how effective it is since I've never used it (although it's advertised all over the 24HR Fitness centers). I'd honestly have to give it a trial run to see the calorie expenditure and compare it to what I've normally experienced in various activities. Honestly, I'm a bit skeptical. I once participated in a study at Creighton University on body fat % and the inconsistency of results based on the method used. Water displacement was by far the most accurate measure used (in the study), followed by calipers (+/- 1% to 2%), then by hand-held tool (+/- 3% to 5%) and last by home weight scales with body fat % measurements (+/- 5% to 10%). Ever since that, I became a lot more skeptical of tools available to measure fitness/health.

 

When you consider the cost of the BodyBugg, it's somewhat of a deterant. I mean it's $200 (plus monthly subscription costs) if you just want to enter calories and activities on the website which honestly is expensive when you consider there are other web alternatives available for free. The actual BodyBugg Armband with website costs $400 (plus monthly subscription costs). I'm sure there is a market out there for the product, I just can't justify the costs considering I can get close estimates for free.

 

With regards to the topic - have you used the BodyBugg to get an idea of the calorie expenditure to walk/play 18 holes? I'd be interested to hear the results.

[hbear]

Ultimately you have to determine HOW the "bodybugg" or anything else is determining caloric expenditure or body fat% or anything else...

 

For caloric expenditure, the gold standard really is a "metabolic cart" (bomb calorimeter for food) which measures oxygen uptake breath per breath. Using oxygen uptake, we can calculate how much energy one is using at any given time as there is a direct liner relationship between O2 uptake and energy usage. The metabolic cart also directly measures CO2 (carbon dioxide) output to determine what type of energy one is using at any given time. E.g. The more CO2 expended....the greater relative percentage of carbohydrates one is using. We us what we call a RER value (energy exchange rate) which is CO2/O2.

 

Now we have our direct method....the gold standard.

Everything else is basically measuring something else and trying to relate it back to the gold standard....in doing so we have already built in a %error.

An apparatus on your skin IS NOT going to be able to measure O2 or CO2 rates (unless we have developed the ability to breath through our skin). It can however measure bioelectrical impedance, heat, etc. which do have a relationship with caloric expenditure...however to say that it would be accurate is untrue unless it directly measures O2.

 

I can't comment (yet) on how the "bodybugg" works as there is NO literature, NO research, NO explanation, NO science, and NO mention of how the "bodybugg" actually measures caloric expenditure.

I'd be very interested to know what it's method is and what calculation it uses to determine caloric expenditure.

[hbear]

I once participated in a study at Creighton University on body fat % and the inconsistency of results based on the method used. Water displacement was by far the most accurate measure used (in the study), followed by calipers (+/- 1% to 2%), then by hand-held tool (+/- 3% to 5%) and last by home weight scales with body fat % measurements (+/- 5% to 10%). Ever since that, I became a lot more skeptical of tools available to measure fitness/health.

 

Gold standard is Hydrostatic weighing (dunk tank) where we compare your weight in the water vs. that of land to determine your body density. For that the apparatus is perfect....for density it's what it measures and it does it well.

 

The problem is when we try to extrapolate %fat from density. Here's where all the errors actually occur. They occur because we estimate non fat mass to have a certain density, and body fat to have a certain density. In addition within our bodies we have trapped air within them. Either in our intestines/stomach (estimated at 150ml), and also in our lungs (what we call residual volume). Problem here is we know air is significantly lighter than water, and a small amount of air can really skew results. Another issue is that body builders/athletes have a much denser muscle mass than the norms. Since we are at best "guessing" how much air is in the body, and guessing at the density of non-fat mass (muscle mass)...via regression equations and such the best we can determine is body fat % to +/-2-3%.

 

May not sound like much, but consider this, if you have a calculation determined to be 8%....you can be anywhere from 5% to 11%. That is a VERY significant difference.

 

Now that error doubles with skinfold calipers, as the equations developed for skinfold calipers were developed via the hydrostatic weigh technique....(have an error 2-3% x2)

Add on measurement error (how much skin is pinched) some are more aggressive than others, and (how long one leaves the caliper there to take the measure) as the value decreases the longer the skin is "clamped"...

the best the calipers can do is really +/-6-8%. Which means if you had a value of 12%...you really can be anywhere between 4% and 20%....again a VERY significant difference.

 

The BIA scales (body fat scales that use skin conductance) is at very best bad...because again they are based of values that already have built in errors. But even worse is the fact it uses skin conductance.

The assumption is that non-fat mass will conduct electricity better than fat mass (which is true)....however if a person has sweaty palms/feet or have just taken a shower, etc...the value the BIA gets is useless.

Even if it were to work correctly, the best I've seen was +/-8-10% with it anyways.

[Skaffa77]

The literature available for bodybugg indicates it's the most accurate outside of a clinical setting. According to a press release for the product being recognized in Popular Science, it has a 92% accuracy rate for measuring calorie expenditure. As you explained, it uses 4 sensor points to measure calorie expenditure based on body temperature (heat), motion and electrical current.

 

http://www.bodybugg.com/science_behind_bodybugg.php

http://www.bodybugg.com/in_the_news.php

 

Interesting product, I just don't know if I'd pay the $$ for it.

[thatswhatshesaid]

I've worn the bodybugg for the past 29 months and can tell you that it is an amazing tool to accurately measure caloric expenditure. I've also trained numerous clients using the tool, and it makes weight loss very simple. Obviously a clinical setting is the best way to measure caloric expenditure, but who has the time or resources to do that? The $399 price tag that comes with the bodybugg is all relevant to what you're using it for. If you are trying to lose weight and need help, then isn't $399 worth it considering what your health care costs might be if you continue to gain weight?

[Skaffa77]

I've worn the bodybugg for the past 29 months and can tell you that it is an amazing tool to accurately measure caloric expenditure. I've also trained numerous clients using the tool, and it makes weight loss very simple. Obviously a clinical setting is the best way to measure caloric expenditure, but who has the time or resources to do that? The $399 price tag that comes with the bodybugg is all relevant to what you're using it for. If you are trying to lose weight and need help, then isn't $399 worth it considering what your health care costs might be if you continue to gain weight?

 

Just curious, have you worn it while walking/playing 18 holes of golf (6500-7000 yards)? I would love to hear what it showed for calorie expenditure.

 

I would agree that if the tool provides an accurate measure, it would help some people get a better gauge of their caloric expenditure. With regards to the value, that is a perception specific to the individual and ultimately the market you are trying to reach.

 

Neither the tool or a $399 (plus subscription costs) price tag will not guarantee someone weight loss (short or long term). It merely provides better visibility of data that allows the person to make more informed decisions about his or her activity level and caloric intake. Whether or not a positive decision is made (about activity or what is eaten), is another question. Also, since the tool (bodybugg) doesn't measure caloric intake, there is a margin of error when the person enters his/her calories into the website. To be honest, many people underestimate their actual portion sizes and thus report lower than actual calorie intake.

 

I guess my point about the cost is that most folks could use a free website (there are dozens) to track their calorie intake and activity level. It may not be as accurate in measuring the calorie expenditure, but should provide enough visibility for the individual to make good decisions if they have the discipline or will-power to do so.

 

Again, I've never used the bodybugg armband, but assuming it is approx. 92% accurate in measure the value of an individuals activity, I think it's a great tool. From my own perspective, I just can't justify the cost when I can use a free online tool to provide me nearly the same functionality on my approximate caloric intake and expenditure.

[hbear]

Interesting enough.

But 92% accurate compared to what? What study was done, what were it's methods, what population group and so forth?

92% compared to direct measurement? Or compared to known "estimates?" Big difference.

 

While I disagree on the comment about it being "accurate"....due to the nature of how it collects data.

E.g. If I'm in a hot/humid enviroment (like Florida etc.) and doing a pile of arm swings...the armband will interpret that I'm burning calories like a madman. Skin temp is higher, skin is more conductive due to the enviroment I'm in, "heat flux" will be high, and that accelerometer will be going like mad too. If I perform an exercise without any arm movement, the device will underestimate my "caloric burn" as well.

 

How about if I workout in a long sleeve vs. short sleeve. In a long sleeve my body will not be able to dissipate as much body heat, so the device will "think" I'm working out harder than I really am....ditto if I am fighting a flu and my temp is elevated by that.

 

Or how about if I'm racing at the go-cart track. I'm in a long sleeve, it's hot on the track, I'm going to be sweating, and that accelerometer again is going to be going crazy??

 

It website doesn't say, but I'm going to assume at some point I have to punch in my age/height/weigth, or that sort of information to program the device....that would obviously mean that they are working with normative data, and not actual data for myself. So if I fall outside the norms.....device is going to produce a significant amount of error for me. (I could be wrong here, but without data input how would the device "know" if I'm a 125lb woman or a 350lb man as we know energy cost of exercise is dependant upon weight in weight bearing activities)

 

So accuracy is a bit of a misnomer.

 

That being said, the device is GREAT to motivate people to get them active and moving all through the day.

For that application it's looks amazing. Anything that can get a person off their butt and moving will help.

 

This device is probably going to be more effective for those people who do not currently track food intake, or have not been very active throughout their lives. Lets face it, if they were....they wouldn't need this device.

 

Cost is a factor...possible deterent as their are many other resources that are going to be about as good.

But in my opinion a person would be better served to take the money they would spend on this device and it's subscription and hire a professional to help them through their weight loss instead.

If they are using this device in conjunction with professional help....that would be a pretty winning combination.

[thatswhatshesaid]

The maker behind the bodybugg is BodyMedia Inc. Check out their website for detailed information.

The following link will provide you with how the armband functions as a energy expenditure device.

 

http://www.bodymedia.com/papers/wp_accuracy_ee.pdf

[hbear]

Looked over the paper....didn't have time to check into the references.

But ultimately it shows the armband data in comparison to metabolic cart data/etc.

 

However as the research mentions, how the algorithms are developed is via data they get from metabolic cart data/etc. and then they create algorithms to co-relate the data the armband is collecting to come up with the number you see.

 

96% accuracy really was only during rest/sleep type states.

As the activity changes, the accuracy decreases, especially if the activity involves more/less arm motion than a general activity. (0.86 correlation with weight training)

 

They have since developed "exercise specific algorithms" for various activities to combat the above...but limitions still exist for exercises outside of their stuided "norms".

Golf does come to mind as there is a significant amount of arm movement with the swing, which the device will sense is greater activity than it really is.

 

However it still remains to have a number of (IMO) significant limitations in regards to accuracy.

E.g. My examples above.

 

Like I said before the device is GREAT as a motivation tool, and to attempt to give numaric data to a person's activity.

 

I am impressed that the paper linked does explain, go into and show some of the device limitations, and not just give support the positive.

 

I look forward to seeing what this device (and similar devices) will do in the future.

Hopefully they will develop a foolproof AND accurate device down the road.

[pro11ace]

I remember hearing recently that in rest mode (sitting, sleeping, standing, etc.) you burn aprox. 100 calories in an hour, and aprox. 300 at a slow walking pace. So... you do the math.

 

4x300=1200

PLUS swinging the club. However, I think it would be a little less than whatever that would equal, due to the fact you stop... a lot.

 

Beats me. :shout:

 

I think our science teacher said you burn 480 cal in 8hrs of sleep 480 divided by 8 = 60... idk... probably from anywhere from 50-100 :welcomeani:

 

not that it matters (sorry off topic)