Types of exercise matter?

P

PinkSprinkles

New member
I tend to like cardio more than weights but I recently noticed one thing about different types of cardio. I used to always jog/walk on the treadmill for 30 minutes and noticed the monitor said I burned about 350 calories or so. Then I tried the elliptical and in the same 30 minutes, burned near 400. (This is all based on the machine - they're the same brand so I'm assuming they use the same system to determine calories burned)

So anyways, I just found it a little odd because jog-walking on the treadmill takes a LOT more out of me than using the elliptical. I can completely feel the difference between a workout with treadmill usage vs a workout with elliptical usage. I feel much more tired and generally sore after jogging but apparently I burn less calories?

Should I be opting for the elliptical then? Since it burns more calories and wears me out less? I'm wondering because I don't have a major preference but would like to get the maximum benefit from my workouts. My goal is fat burn and weight loss.

Thanks in advance for any advice/suggestions.
 
No, don't believe those calorie counters on exercise machines. They're not accurate.
 
I say do whatever keeps you breathing heavier in a zone that you can sustain for a reasonable duration (~30mins)
 
The machines lie

They all vary. The worst ones are the ones that don't even ask your age or weight first. They are just using a mythological "average" person.

When you think about cardio machines think about the effort involved. On an elliptical you never have to lift your feet. On a bike you're sitting down. I gauge cardio machines by who uses them and how often. The fatter and more out of shape people love ellipticals and recumbent bikes (you sit down). Really fit people use the stair mill (looks like a never ending escalator), the rowing machine and run on treadmills.

If you're not sweating like crazy and keeping your heart rate above 125-130 you're not trying hard enough. If it's too hard, do intervals. Run until you can't run anymore then walk for two minutes then run again. Do that for 40-60 minutes three times a week and the weight will fall off if you eat right. It's not easy and it's going to hurt but if you're not exhausted you're not going hard enough. It takes 6 weeks of three times a week of going hard before it gets any better. I was in the same boat in January and now I can run 6 miles in 50 minutes without stopping.
 
Oh interesting, I was hoping the machines would give me a decent estimate of what I was burning. I generally prefer treadmill because I actually feel like I'm getting a work out - I was just concerned that I could be doing a less strenuous exercise but burning more (since this would mean I could go on for MUCH longer and not be so tired out)

Thanks for the clear ups!
 
I personally prefer the elliptical because it's gentler on my knee.

I agree with Harold that, the calorie counters are iffy at best. However, if hitting the next hundred calories burnt keeps you going a few minuted longer then it's worth using it as a gauge.

When I elliptical I try to give 100% for an hour and always try to beat my 'record' distance. I find that the little element of competition is really helpful in the 35-50 minutes range.
 
I tend to go by heart rate too- get yourself a heart rate monitor- still ignore what it says (I think they still overexaggerate as I tend to lose "1000kcals" a workout yet eat 1900kcals weighed ane measured, I should be emaciated by now if that is the case!) But they do give you info on how hard your working out without having to hold on to something and prevent yourself working out as hard as you could be. Also I cannot count how many gym machines give the wrong amount for my heart rate- and this is when I am wearing a chest strap!

I think also you cannot say "this machine will burn more then that machine" for several reasons.
1. Your body can get used to things quite quickly and not be working out as hard (variation and moderation are the keys to fitness!)
2. You can work out with less input on one machine then on another.
Before I got my HRM, I used to look at the gym machine "calories". I would though find that it didn't seem to matter what speed I went at, the elliptial machine, rowing machine and bike would show the same amount of calories burnt (give or take 10) as long as I kept the time and level the same. So if I felt like taking it easy, the result would be the same as if I had taken 3 caffiene shot espressos and worked 10 bells out of my *ss to complete the exercise. Get a heart rate monitor!
 
caddyguy said:
They all vary. The worst ones are the ones that don't even ask your age or weight first. They are just using a mythological "average" person.

When you think about cardio machines think about the effort involved. On an elliptical you never have to lift your feet. On a bike you're sitting down. I gauge cardio machines by who uses them and how often. The fatter and more out of shape people love ellipticals and recumbent bikes (you sit down). Really fit people use the stair mill (looks like a never ending escalator), the rowing machine and run on treadmills.

If you're not sweating like crazy and keeping your heart rate above 125-130 you're not trying hard enough. If it's too hard, do intervals. Run until you can't run anymore then walk for two minutes then run again. Do that for 40-60 minutes three times a week and the weight will fall off if you eat right. It's not easy and it's going to hurt but if you're not exhausted you're not going hard enough. It takes 6 weeks of three times a week of going hard before it gets any better. I was in the same boat in January and now I can run 6 miles in 50 minutes without stopping.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this 100%. Ok, maybe 80%.

Yes the machines lie lie lie and I agree about the effort expended on them.

But this whole 'you must be exhausted and do intervals' in order to be burning calories and losing weight thing is total crap. Yes it is 'better' but the truth is that the best exercise is the one you can keep doing. It's better to go gently for 6 months than flat out for a month and give up. Over the last few months I've tried tons of things and I've just gone back to steady state cardio! Why? intervals were probably burning more calories but my body was in agony and my ankles hurt. I was stressed out that I would be injured and I fell off the 'daily' exercise routine that had been consistent up to then. Doing stuff in the house ended up being boring and the gym was always full etc etc. I am back to jogging now - I get fresh air and I put my music on and I get to think and get me time. When I did intervals, I had to pay attention to the time so much that it wasn't enjoyable. Getting up in the morning to jog has a payoff and is fun and that makes it 100 times more likely that I will continue to do it.

Point is that blanket statements like this are why everyone trying to diet always kills themselves for a few weeks with some crazy routine and then quits, if not getting injured first. I run about 5 mph - yeah it's not very fast and I'm not killing myself but I am slowly getting faster, I run for at least an hour and my weight is coming off 95% because of my diet (as it will anyway). If I only have 1/2 hr, I run faster. People can also walk weight off, swim it off and just do strength training - anything really as diet does 95% of the work anyway! I'm not saying that you are not right in a lot of your statements but as this board shows most people can lose weight, it's continuing to lose and maintaining afterwards that is hard. I know that steady state low/mid intensity cardio is supposed to be the devil or whatever but if something works for you, then it works.
 
Intensity does matter

I look around my gym and I see the same fat people slowly peddling at a low level and reading the paper. I'm not saying you have to kill yourself and workout at the edge of failure but if you don't even work up a sweat why even bother going to the gym?

I know 80-90% of this is all diet but if you're not going to even try at the gym I'd say you'd be better off going for a 60 minute walk.
 
I agree to caddyguy!

You need to work hard to achieve your goal of losing weight. Diet can't do it alone. Doing simple exercise like walking or jogging is a good alternative if you don't want to tire yourself at the gym.
 
I don't disagree with the principle caddy. Just that low intensity is always better.

shairawilliams

This is actually 100% wrong. There's a good study kicking round on this site about this.
 
Hahahaha- Caddyguy- so many at them at the gyms I had gone to- including one lady who I forever wanted to go and speak to (its just not the done thing in the gym -even the instructors don't interfere with anyone elses workout), she used to start riding the upright bike, ploughing in all her effort, making all sorts of noises...she hadn't pressed the "start" button- it was the only machine in the gym that requires you do this to begin the workout, all the other machines begin when you begin after 10 seconds or so of movement.

Another guy seemed to think he looked better (can only assume this is why) he'd start on a machine at level 25 out of 25 and move at a snails pace. Not fast enough to keep a rhythm, too heavy to maintain a good posture.

Both are bad news. Along with the people who cling onto the machine whilst moving or those that read magazines whilst working out- if your able to read a magazine, book or paper whilst working out, your unlikely to be doing yourself any justice. Its unlikely your really working out very well at all. You'll likely fall to a pace which feels easy for your body, not working out. Your body will have already gotten used to what you do and...theres just so much waste!

I suppose it depends on just how soon you want to see results. No you don't have to kill yourself, but the results will be more likely to show if you do put in 100%.
 
Consider perceived exertion

The reason that you feel like you work harder on a treadmill is because an elliptical machine will cause you to have a lower perceived exertion due to the smooth motion and lack of impact on the joints. They both can give excellent workouts so I feel it is a matter of what you prefer. I like to use both because sometimes if feel like using one and sometimes I feel like using the other. Bottom line is just keep going. Good Luck!
 
Higher intensity is good for cardio improvements but it does not burn that many more calories. People sometimes warn against "adapting" and your "body getting used to the workout" but we're talking about burning 450 calories instead of 500, it is not that significant at all. The fact is that most people trying to lose weight aren't fit enough to do high intensity especially HIIT multiple times a week.

For those constantly overweight people you see at the gym proper cardio is usually the least of their problems, most people think they burn a lot more calories than they actually do (someone around 150lb will burn around 100 calories a mile run or walk, that means if said person walks at 4.0mph for 1hour they burn 400cals, if they run the whole hour at 6mph they burn 600cals) so they think "well I'll have a cheeseburger and milkshake since I worked so hard today", and they are then worse off than before they ran..
 
Last edited:
Tamago said:
Higher intensity is good for cardio improvements but it does not burn that many more calories. People sometimes warn against "adapting" and your "body getting used to the workout" but we're talking about burning 450 calories instead of 500, it is not that significant at all. The fact is that most people trying to lose weight aren't fit enough to do high intensity especially HIIT multiple times a week.

For those constantly overweight people you see at the gym proper cardio is usually the least of their problems, most people think they burn a lot more calories than they actually do (someone around 150lb will burn around 100 calories a mile run or walk, that means if said person walks at 4.0mph for 1hour they burn 400cals, if they run the whole hour at 6mph they burn 600cals) so they think "well I'll have a cheeseburger and milkshake since I worked so hard today", and they are then worse off than before they ran..
Click to expand...

I agree- but not with the cardio side of things- cardio will burn more calories, it may not seem significant after the odd workout once a week/fortnight but actually if done enough, like a few times a week, will add up. Added to that cardio will raise your heart rate higher meaning its going to stay that bit higher after your workout and perhaps even for a little longer. It all adds up and if exercised regularly enough, will make a difference. Another thing to consider is that if someone is pushing themselves to do cardio, work out as hard as they can, they are going to improve the capacity they can work at far faster then someone who works at a medium easy level. They get the chance to improve and work at an even higher level and burn even more calories. It doesn't have to be dull or scary or impossible, just things like a circuit class over a walk on the treadmill or interval training over a slow stationary bike ride for example.

Simple equaltion we're looking for here, more calories going out then coming in = weight loss. It will never happen over night, no one is ever going to lose a significant amount of weight in a week, it takes weeks and months and even years in some cases. Saying 'its only 50 kcals' for one workout to make the difference may seem a small amount, but it does add up and going on the weeks/months/years people tend to need to lose weight, that additional 50 kcals could add up to 500000 kcals and thats quite a few pounds- thats withoug even considering the after-effect that higher intensity working out could add over the weeks/months/years!

I would say its a good idea to up things as much as you can to make those weeks/months/years as reduced as possible and this means working out harder, pushing yourself to increase your fitness so you can do more and ofcourse, watching what you eat. And this I think is why most peoples efforts seem not to work- like you say, they think they burn more then they do, they go out to Mc Donalds or KFC, eat 2000kcals as they have worked out for half an hour- I see it all the time. Its shocking when after my 1.5-2 hour of cardio I feel so concerned at what I can eat and to injest above 200kcals on a snack is a big deal to me!

Unless you like taking things the long route :banghead: :)
 
Last edited:
Is outdoor cardio best?

I don't know where everyone is from, but I'm from Vermont (the green mountain state).

Around here as soon as spring hits the gyms become like ghost towns because everyone is outside.

I really believe that we have yet to create any cardio equipment that can equal a good out door bike ride, hike or jog.

So my two cents are just that I think cardio done outdoors can't hold a candle to cardio done indoors.

But that might also depend on where you live too.
 
I definitely agree with running outside. I've actually switched back to running outside after I realized that I seemed to be burning more and using more muscles running the same amount outside than running on a treadmill. Don't get me wrong, treadmill is always a nice alternative but the random hills (even running down - which is something most treadmills don't offer) seem to be giving me a much harder workout.

I also find it strange that I can go much farther on a treadmill (distance & time-wise) than I can if I'm running outside. Never realized how much wind resistance or the small incline made while jogging.
 
I used to run outside and no doubt I will pick it up again when the weather here in the UK dries up and becomes warm enough to run without a hat scarf and leg warmers!

But its not as easy to run in London as it may be for all of you- its a small town compared to others yet has way too many buildings and not enough green spaces. Why would I want to fumigate myself by running behind a car with an exhaust problem when I can run in an air-con'd gym?
Then there are the chavs, who like to throw things at runners, eggs, beer...but broken glass is just stupid. For that reason you MUST have running partner and no one I know even goes to a gym let alone wants to run outside!
Then the buggies and mental kids who do not seem to appreicate someone running at 7mph needs for them to move out of the way- they just stand around babbling on looking straight at you- or worse walk towards you whilst on their phones and then wonder why thier buggy/child/arm gets an accidental knock as you swirve past them to avoid knocking them right to the ground. Maybe when they see a runner, at least not spreading themselves out on the pavement could be an idea?!!

I prefer to run inside in the winter and outside when its a little easier to do so in many ways in the winter. Outside cardio does seem to result in me working just as hard, sometimes a little harder but as explained to me, when you run on a treadmill, you run on the spot, you can go very fast as there are no obsticles. But running outside you have to push off from things, your propelling yourself forward and up rather then just up so you go slower but work just as hard. I wear a heart rate monitor and find my heart rate goes just the same as if I were in a gym unless I can find a hill which seem all to out do those that are in the gym and theres not much better then being able to turn around at the top and look back down again and see all your hard work in one go, you cannot do this in a gym and its very unfortunate I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top