so I have been jogging for a month or so and did I 5k a couple of weeks ago. I have been running on a treadmill and it shows the calories burned on the display. I run about 25 minutes and it shows that I burn about 350 calories during that time. I did the elliptical machine today for 25 minutes and it showed I burned 600 calories...what gives?
cliffs notes. why is it when I jog 25mins I burn 350 calories and when I do the elliptical for 25 minutes I burn 600 calories but im not as tired.
is it just that what the machines show is wrong? Here is a link pointing to my machine
Last edited by Dowelast; 18th February 2020 at 16:40.
Isn't it just that your powering the elliptical machine rather than a treadmill which is doing a bit of the work for you. Ie. when running outdoors you use energy to propel yourself forward, on a treadmill you just have to lift your legs and the belt moves beneath you.
If you want to burn n.even more calories try this HIIT routine .
Its awesome and only 20 mins of your time.
https://youtu.be/EXMcwt2USCA
You also have to factor in the weather. Wind and rain etc that you don't experience at home or in the gym.
The terrain is also another factor, treadmills etc are flat and boring, running outdoors you need to keep your eyes 10 foot ahead of you, pavements, tree roots, whatever - there is always something to run over or around and the ground is rarely flat, inclines up and down are always likely to appear in any run unless you purposely pick a dead flat run like going along a prom for example.
Multi-terrain is the best, the time flies because you are concentrating on the ground ahead of you.
Also, jogging is a term hated by runners. It conjures up an image of a big fat guy who has just got off the couch and has taken his first slow steps in 20 years in a big grey fluffy baggy tracksuit - that's jogging.
Fun runners is another hated term, especially when pundits on TV describe the runners at the back of the London marathon etc as fun runners. There is nothing fun about running 26 miles I can assure you.
Last edited by Wallasey Runner; 4th February 2020 at 12:36.
I don´t consider these exercise machine figures too accurate. With wrist computer and HR strap one would get much more accurate results.
Roughly, calories spent within certain time frame depend on your weight and HR.
Very well said! As a former runner who was pretty good at it in my youth I detest the term 'jogging'. Even in my late 40s I could run to a reasonable standard despite injuries etc, but folks would still say 'I saw you out jogging' which was always irritating.Originally Posted by Wallasey Runner
Have to admit, at the age of 62, jogging is probably a more accurate description of my progress thesedays.......but that wasn`t always the case!
I`ve never liked the term 'fun runner' or 'fun run', organised events are races where the aim is to cover the distance as quickly as your ability allows, you're not supposed to jog around with a grin on your face.
Ironically, I`m sat here wearing the fluffy grey tracksuit bottoms associated with joggers, but I had knee surgery yesterday so I`ve got a good excuse! In the words of that bloke in some film....'I`ll be back'.
The point the OP raises regarding calories etc is a fair one. I think any form of calorie measurement is flawed and shouldn't be taken literally. If you consider the physics, you've moved a weight of approx. 80kg over given distance in a given time, so a finite amount of energy has been expended (unless you caught the bus). If you finish at a high or lower point there's also the change in potential energy....think of it like carrying yourself up the stairs, you're now 12 ft higher so you've gained potential energy and that was expended in lifting you. I would use any form of calorie readout as an arbitrary comparison to what you did on the same equipment the last time you used it, there's no way the measuring devices can be accurate. I`d encourage anyone to take exercise, but don't get hung up on stuff like this. Folks are obsessed with fitbits etc thesedays, can`t see the wood for the trees.
Fitbits, Christ the wife drives me mad with hers, I only had so many hours deep sleep, my heart rate is this and that, I've done 11,000 steps today - just sod right off.
I think machines can be pretty accurate as a calorie is a measured unit.
"By definition, one calorie is the amount of energy that it takes to raise 1cm^3 of water by 1 degree Celsius. Thus, to raise 1 litre of water by 1 degree Celsius, it would take 1000 calories."
A machine manufacture should fairly easily figure out how much energy it takes to use it. Treadmills vary of course but rowers, bikes and cross trainers can actively and accurate measure energy.
Having spent the last few years of my career doing energy balance calculations I'm conscious of how easy (or otherwise) energy calculations ought to be. I even checked my recently purchased electric kettle by carrying out a quick simple experiment, the 2kw rating is surprisingly accurate!
I can see how a machine such as a rower can measure the absolute quantity of energy put into it over a period of time during use, that'll give a figure in Watts (joules/sec) or kW, which is easily translated to calories, but why does the weight of the person have any bearing? That's the bit that makes no sense for me. Likewise the wrist devices, think about what it physically measures and tell me how that translates to energy used. Heart rate and weight are the only parameters, how can energy usage be computed accurately from that?
For a person running, there are several other factors. As a rough approximation I've always believed running to consume approx. 10 calories/minute, or 15 if running more briskly. Don't know where I got this from, it's a long time since I thought about it.
Running machines in gyms always amuse me, people appear to be working hard, but they're not, they're simply moving their legs quickly. Elliptical trainers have a big advantage because they eliminate impact, a running machine doesn't, and that's why I`d never go near one.
On Sunday, prior to the knee op, I did a 50 minute stint on an elliptical cross trainer at varying speeds/resistance, heart rate between 135 and 170 throughout, a good hard workout (albeit mind-numbing). The knee felt fine, but there's no way I could even jog across the car park on it. Much as I dislike exercise machines they do have a part to play, especially if you're overweight or carrying injuries. The lack of impact is a big advantage, I'd never advise anyone who's overweight to try getting fit by jogging/running, try brisk walking, rowing machines, ellipticals etc until the weight comes down to something close to what nature intended, that's the weight your joints are designed to carry.
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 4th February 2020 at 14:05.
Sure they can, but it means they work as they should, person doing exercises will insert a correct weight and machine can read HR data. Without HR it just estimates based on activity, without weight and HR
it estimates even more.
Explained here for example: https://www.hss.edu/conditions_burni...xpenditure.asp
Why does HR matter? MET levels are average, as well trained person would spend less energy under the same conditions (HR is lower).
Last edited by Soom; 4th February 2020 at 14:52.
My wife hasn't got one but she can give me the figures anyway.Maybe one for Dear Wife.
Can someone explain to me how heart rate and weight can be used to compute energy output?
Taking one not very fit individual as an example, with a resting heart rate of 70, he exercises on a machine with a fixed setting at a fixed speed. He is using X calories/minute putting energy into the machine and his heart rate reaches 140.
6 months later he's a whole lot fitter, his heart rate at rest is now 60, to put energy into the machine at the same rate of X cals/minute his heart now only reaches 120, his heart and cardiovascular system is more efficient. The rate of energy expenditure is the same but the heart rate is lower, so how are the two directly proportional?
His weight hasn`t changed, over the period he's lost some fat but gained lean tissue, so that's constant.
Anything based on weight and heart rate to compute calories must be flawed in my opinion.
As for these fitbit/fatbit/shitbit devices, unless you have a medical problem where heart rate data may be beneficial, they seem like a waste of time to me. No point generating data for its own sake.
I don't think it can on it's own but my view would be:
You have two riders each on a Watt bike (one fit whippet and one not-so-fit lardy), both cycling for 5 minutes at the same cadence. At the end the ride the Watt bike could accurately tell you how much energy was received through the cranks (should be the same for each rider), but the fit whippet wouldn't have breathed as heavily, sweated as much or raised their heart rate as much as the lardy. So to do a full calculation of energy burned, heart rate and weight need to be factored in.
I'm sure companies like Technogym and Concept 2 have tons of data for all body types too.
Echo the comments above. I run regularly, roughly 6m30s per mile pace and hated it when someone has asked if I’m going out for a jog! I think I read somewhere that the definition of jogging is 10 minute miles or more. Almost felt like the person asking me if I was going jogging was trying to put me down somehow.
I’ve always assumed the elliptical trainer isn’t that accurate, but I’m interested from the above discussion about accuracy why a 600 calorie, 25 minute workout on an elliptical trainer feels much easier than the same running.
I’m sure I read somewhere that calories burnt is (roughly) only dependent on distance, not pace, which makes sense.
The easy majority of devices out there that claim to tell you how much energy you have expended are making no more than educated estimates.
Unless the device is accurately measuring power, then it's based on a manufacturers calculation, which tries to take into account age, sex, weight, heart rate etc, but at the end it's still just an estimate.
It's best to ignore these estimates.
Pete
I’m curious to know how many calories are expended during a hard 1hr weight training session. I try to do a couple each week, the primary benefit isn’t cardio fitness and the aim isn’t to to use calories, but there must be secondary benefits in both areas. Short recoveries and moving from one exercise to the next (circuit training) helps the cardio effect but I’ve no idea how the calories compares to light running or the elliptical trainer.
Not at all.
You’re right that they are estimated. But they still provide you with a benchmark telative to previous exercises.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
That’s about right. If you use the same machine regularly you can compare the numbers, I’ve done this in the past, it shows if you’ve worked as hard or done as much as last time!
Depends what you call hard, and what volume you can get through. I’ve managed around 1000 cals in the past, but most would be around 500-600 calories per 45-50 minute weights session.
I see no point in circuit training, at least over other training, as it’s much more efficient to either do cardio or lift weights rather than trying to do both in the same exercise session.
I found it much more accurate to use a polar monitor that synced with the gym trainers, treadmill, elliptical, rower etc. At the end of a day it’s an indicator, and unless you are measuring oxygen usage it’s a best guess algorithm. So you can measure improvements quite easily, and higher calorie burn numbers always translated directly into higher or faster weight loss numbers for me.
It's just a matter of time...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote