I just don’t get it. I have been hitting up the elliptical for the last couple of weeks (I’m a bike guy), and this afternoon I went back to the bike for a 25 min post workout sweat.
My legs were burning more than ever before, and sweat was dripping down of my face all over the floor. But when I came to the end of my session I realized that I had burned Half the calories that I have been burning for an equivalent time of elliptical training, even though I was more taxed and sweated way more than I ever do on the elliptical.
Calorie counters are definitely not accurate… Not to mention some of them just start counting without you putting in any info… Like weight and body fat percentage.
From what I have read the ellipticals have an interesting phenomenon where it feels “easier” at the same heart rate. The bike is really the only piece of equipment I feel like I can safely go balls to the wall for HIIT, for all other cardio work I use the ellip or the regular treadmill… Or just jog outside.
The big ‘gimick’ on the elipticals is that they ‘work your whole body’. In all honesty, while that MAY be true, you probably strain more intensely (work harder) riding the bike.
Depends on which you are more effective at honestly, though I’d lean more with Stu. I’m an elliptical guy for the most part because I’m pretty crap at using a cycle for a workout. But with any piece of equipment/or exercise it is more of how much effort,intensity, and skill with the exercise involved.
I occasionally use cycles but I find that its very hard to really get my heart rate past 130 on them and at the point its really burning up my legs to the point of fucking with my workout.
When I was in the process of losing alot of weight I used exclusively the elliptical for cardio, two 15-minute sessions a day, shooting for 225-250 kcals per session based on my height/weight/age that I entered…
Now were those calorie measurements entirely accurate…no…but, I did lose alot of weight in a relatively short amount of time and I could do 15minutes before and after my workout without adversely impacting my lifting session.
Point is, I’m a big elliptical fan and no matter how easy it may seem or how girly it may seem…it works if you push yourself a bit. I will swear by the elliptical for weight loss cardio without affecting your workout.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Calorie counters are definitely not accurate… Not to mention some of them just start counting without you putting in any info… Like weight and body fat percentage.
[/quote]
I dont see why BF% would be required, surely from a pure physics point of view you only need to know body mass to work out the energy required? Two guys doing the same movement at the same rate would use the same energy regardless of BF% (though they wouldn’t necessarily be perceived as the same effort).
For most well-conditioned people to be able to use the bike as a viable cardio option, their legs have to make physiological changes that will negatively impact strength gains.
I have a female client who is quite strong and she has been able to add 20lbs to her 3 x 10 front squat day. Was doing 95lbs now doing 115. This change occured soon after she stopped biking for the winter.
As far as ellipticals are concerned it is more the difference between having to bear your bodyweight while exercising and the fact that the bike requires pure muscular effort, than it is the superiority of the elliptical machine over the bike. Incline walking, running, and the stairmill probably would do a much better job of burning calories than the bike for most people.
Calorie counters on cardiovascular machines are notoriously poor. Using a heart rate monitor that takes into account height, weight, gender, age and vo2 max are much better but still not perfect.
I agree with others that the calorie calculations on most machines and even charts are suspect.
Consider the calorie charts for running. If you weigh 160 pounds, the “chart” says you will burn 242.4 calories if you run at 5 mph for 25 minutes and 484.8 calories if you run at 10 mph for 25 minutes. Thus, the chart is saying that if you double your speed or intensity, then you double your calories.
However, if one thinks about it, it takes a lot more energy to double your speed; thus, your calories should more than double…but not according to the chart. Consider, if one doubles there car speed from 55 to 110 mph, your gas milage will go down considerably. In general, i find the charts and calorie counters very suspect from a scientific view point.
This maybe another reason that HIIT programs work better than slow constant aerobic session for fat loss. May be slightly off topic to this post, but i find the caloric charts very suspect.
[quote]Old Dax wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
Calorie counters are definitely not accurate… Not to mention some of them just start counting without you putting in any info… Like weight and body fat percentage.
I dont see why BF% would be required, surely from a pure physics point of view you only need to know body mass to work out the energy required? Two guys doing the same movement at the same rate would use the same energy regardless of BF% (though they wouldn’t necessarily be perceived as the same effort).[/quote]
Its my understanding that muscle burns more calories than fat both at rest and during a workout. Carrying an extra 30 pounds of muscle while exercising on a bike would yield a bigger calorie burn than otherwise… I could be wrong though.
The calorie counters are good for one thing, and that is measuring progress. If you use the same machine on the same settings and burn 250 cals in 20 minutes on one day, and then 260 cals in 20 minutes on the next day… Thats progress.
As long as the machines are precise(get the same measurement every time), accuracy is not an issue if you only care about the progress you have made compared to last workout.
I’m not saying that I don’t enjoy the Bike or Elliptical, I like em both fine. My dilema is whether I should be judging Cardio’s effectiveness by how much I sweat, or by how much the calorie counter tells me I’ve burned???
You should gauge it by the effectiveness and intensity.
Obviously, the more intense it is, the more effective it will be. So choose the “harder” method when it comes your interval training and cardio. The bike is better than the elliptical. Sprinting outdoors trumps them both.
I think everyone understands what you are asking. What they are trying to tell you is that is a very complicated process. The counters aren’t right but your body also isn’t always telling you the right thing either.
The cardio counter for the elliptical is assuming you are using your arms, standing with good posture and really moving with the machine. It is significantly higher than the bike because the formula used to determine calories burned takes body weight into account, or at least doesn’t subtract it.
The formula the bike calorie counter is using is assuming you are sitting on the seat and spinning. It doesn’t take into account if you are off the seat and really rocking into the pedals. If you are doing the full body weight rocking thing your calories are going to be higher than what is shown.
Pretty much any of the “meters” on any exercise equipment (treadmill, bike, elliptical,etc.) cannot be trusted. I don’t trust the calorie counters at all, as they definitely cannot take enough variables into consideration to give an accurate number. One of the biggest examples I just found out is the speed of treadmills. I have been running lately, putting in 2 miles a session. I jumped on one treadmill and knocked it out in just under 14 minutes (definitely not bragging, since its not bragworthy in the least, just giving a point of reference). I got on a more “highly regarded” treadmill the other day and tried to hold the same pace, but was dead after 1 mile.
Bottom line, there is a lot of error in cardio machines…
It’s just cardio. If you’re on a stationary bike or an elliptical, it’s pretty clear that you’re not concerned with true aerobic conditioning and you just want to burn off some calories or drop some fat. I hope you’re doing Low-Intensity, walking pace cardio on these machines because anything more just looks ridiculous.
What will get you in the best cardiovascular shape? Not Ellipticals or Recumbent Bikes that’s for damn sure.
What’s your goal? Is it to be a Bodybuilder? Look at the best bodybuilders and copy them (because they all pretty much do the same stuff). Stefan Havlik uses a Rowing Machine. Ronnie Coleman uses a Stairmaster. They’re all remaining pretty chill.
Whatever form of cardio you choose, just make sure what you’re dong doesn’t detract from your work with weights. Keep your intensity in check.
And don’t worry about your lifts not going up because you’re doing too much low-intensity stationary biking. If you think easy biking his holding your lifts back, you’re kidding yourself. Andy Bolton does 30 minutes of Cardio 3 times a week on a stationary Bike. His lifts aren’t suffering.