The best clothing combinations for backpacking or hiking?
 Display Avatars Sort By: Date (Chronological) Date (Reverse Chronological)
 Frank Perkins (fperkins) Locale: North East Re: Various clo questions, mostly for Richard on 09/04/2007 09:26:40 MDT "First, in calculating MET (based on the url you gave out earlier), I get a BMR of 1820 for me and 1281 for my wife."I searched and couldn't find the link to calculating MET. Can you post the URL?Thanks!
 Jaiden . (jaiden) - F BMR url on 09/04/2007 09:28:04 MDT Sure!http://home.fuse.net/clymer/bmi/
 Frank Perkins (fperkins) Locale: North East Re: Various clo questions, mostly for Richard on 09/04/2007 09:37:46 MDT First, in calculating MET (based on the url you gave out earlier), I get a BMR of 1820 for me and 1281 for my wife. I divided by 24 (hours) which gave me 42.1 and 35.6 respectively1820/24 = 75.8 Did you do the math wrong?
 Jaiden . (jaiden) - F BMR, W/m2? on 09/04/2007 09:42:28 MDT I think I already see part of my problem. The BMR from that url is in kcals/day, but Richard shows BMR as W/m^2.This confuses me somewhat, since the calculations on the url take into account body surface area. I tried converting kcal/day to Watts/hr but I get 881, and 881/1.95m^2 (my surface area, per the url) gives me 452, which is clearly wrong.So, I still need help.
 Jaiden . (jaiden) - F BMR/MET, ugh on 09/04/2007 09:45:30 MDT "First, in calculating MET (based on the url you gave out earlier), I get a BMR of 1820 for me and 1281 for my wife. I divided by 24 (hours) which gave me 42.1 and 35.6 respectively1820/24 = 75.8 Did you do the math wrong?"First, yes, see my last post. Second, I then divided by 1.8, which is the average m^2. Either way I think it's wrong in several different ways. sigh.
 Joshua Mitchell (jdmitch) - F Locale: Kansas BMR Calcs... on 09/04/2007 10:06:07 MDT If you take a look at the following exchanges, specifically my questions, it should help.http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=8931&startat=20Realize that and out put of 1000 (kilocalories per day) = 48-49 watts. (1 820 (kilocalories per day) = 88.1351852 watts)You're 'average' male has a resting wattage of 80.1 W. This is what Richards graph would likely have been based on. Whatever YOUR BMR winds up being, you can more or less correct the amount of Clo required by inverting the relationship. (aka people with higher BMRs require less Clo to stay comfortably warm)Of course, this doesn't get into personal preference of what is considered 'comfortable'. These calcs should be used as a starting point. Edited by jdmitch on 09/04/2007 10:07:16 MDT.
 Jaiden . (jaiden) - F BMR getting closer on 09/04/2007 10:32:18 MDT OK, I think I've got the W/m2 now.I found:1 kilocalorie / hr = 1.16222222 wattsSo my kcal/day BMR of 1820 divided by 24 hours, times the above gives me 88 and my wife 62. This divided by m^2 gives us 45.2 and 42.75 respectively. Not much difference, but I can vouch for a huge difference in our relative comfort levels.
 John S. (jshann) - F Re: Re: Re: Also confused on 09/04/2007 11:04:51 MDT Touche' mon frere (?sp). Just trying to rile you CLOers up. Don't pay me no attention. I'll be over at the backpacker.com forums if you need me.John Edited by jshann on 09/04/2007 11:05:29 MDT.
 Jon Rhoderick (hotrhoddudeguy) - F - M Locale: New England Re: Re: Re: Re: Also confused on 09/04/2007 11:49:18 MDT OKSooo I've done know how to do the calculations for the BMR now, but how do you do percentage of surface area? I saw a little of that lab report, but I don't really wanna read through all of it if someone could do the equation.any help?PS, we should get a copper mannequin for BPLs birthday or for Festavus. Edited by hotrhoddudeguy on 09/04/2007 12:10:54 MDT.
 Jaiden . (jaiden) - F how I calculated surface area % on 09/04/2007 11:57:39 MDT Well, I put all the measurements into a spreadsheet, adding left/right sides and then added them up for the total surface area. Then for each body part, I did a simple formula which divided the number for each part by the total. this gives me a % of the total, which I'm assuming is relatively standard, even if the actual area isn't. Then I add up the parts that make up a garment.Here's the table I got, with some examples of items. I guessed that a hoodie with thumb holes covers 60% of the head (not the face) and 40% of the hands (not the fingers).body part % area m2 % item %legs 0.1771 0.120157406 pants 0.462107334feet 0.0883 0.059909085 jacket 0.34968451thighs 0.33 0.223895787 hoodie 0.415930524crotch 0.174 0.118054142 vest 0.282515774head 0.11 0.074631929 hands 0.0791 0.053667142 arms 0.099 0.067168736 shoulders0.1514 0.102720673 chest 0.138 0.093629147 back 0.127 0.086165954 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4739 1
 Jon Rhoderick (hotrhoddudeguy) - F - M Locale: New England Re: how I calculated surface area % on 09/04/2007 12:22:48 MDT so is that the mannequin's measurements or yours? I suppose there would be large differences for each person, especially between the genders in the chest region.
 Jaiden . (jaiden) - F Re: Re: how I calculated surface area % on 09/04/2007 12:44:00 MDT The mannequin's... I have better things to do than measure my surface area to 4 decimal places. I figure that though the area itself changes, the proportions probably don't very much. Besides, it doesn't look like she has much up top to skew the chest percentage.