Hello, I love using the elliptical machine because I can do very intense workouts without tiring out! I do about 4 sessions a week, 2 sessions for 30-45 mins and 2 for 60 mins. When I do these sessions, the heart monitors show that I am burning approx. 835-860 cals per hour. Now, when I get on a treadmill at about 5.5, I only burn about half that! I am wondering which is a more efficient CALORIE burning machine? I am going to be purchasing a gym quality treadmill or elliptical in a couple of weeks because I am a student and have only about an hour to spare each day. I want the best calorie burner because I want to continue my weight loss, and I have always heard that treadmills are the best. However, isn't it best to go with a machine that I enjoy working out on such as the elliptical? I've been working out on only the elliptical machine (and the bike) at the gym for over a year and lost 15 lbs the first 3 months! Should I continue this routine? I know it's best to switch around your routine, but I am not a fitness finatic. I use my nordic track gym and free weights about 3 times a week for toning and that's about it! Any advice would be great! Also, I notice that all the people who run on treadmills have great legs! Can I get legs like this exercising on an elliptical?

Thanks in advance for any advice, and sorry for the length! -Amanda

FYI: The readouts you get are VERY, VERY wrong. An ATHLETE would barely burn that many calories in an hour.

Most people burn about 2-3 calories per minute depending on workout intensity. If you have a lot of muscle you may burn around 250-300 calories an hour but that's REEEAAALLY pushing it as it is.

How many calories you burn is based on your metabolism, not your heart rate, or age, or weight. Those machines provide very false information if you're trying to determine caloric expenditure.

Merrida...wouldn't you agree though, that regardless of the accuracy (or lack) of those readouts, a person can still use them as a guage. In other words...if the same person were to use the treadmill for 45 minutes from resting, and the ecliptic machine for 45 minutes from resting...and got the same basic readings on both machines...they should be able to conclude that they are getting the same benefit from each machine? I'm just talking heart rate reading, not calories burned. I agree that that reading is meaningless. So if Sohogirl did that; and still discovers that her heartrate is higher on the treadmill, then she is likely burning more calories on the treadmill. But if her heartrate were about the same either way, then she is probably burning about the same number of calories on either machine. Right?

That is a good point, and even though she would not get a number to tell her how *many* calories she was burning, she could make a comparison based on heart rate.

The only variable is that in some situations, the heart rate goes up because of breathing heavy, not because of the efficient rhythmic muscle movement. Example: I've seen people do "speed" walking and "speed" eliptical, and it's making their heart rate go up because they're running on momentum, not on muscle power. The muscles burn the calories. Think of it in this regard: If breathing heavy and increased heart rate were all that were needed to burn calories, then panic attacks and hyperventilating would make you skinny. Both produce elevated pulse and respiration, but neither provide large rhythmic muscle movement.

This is where something that is weight bearing (like the treadmill) can actually cause you to burn more calories than a non-weight bearing exercise (such as the eliptical).

You do bring up a good point, however, that she can certainly use the heart rate reading as a gauge. My favorite method, though, is just "rating of perceived exhertion." If you take the time to get in touch with your body and how it "feels" while you're exercising, (rather than zoning out or trying to just get through it)... you can move your body and just feel what one gives you the better workout.

Thanks Merrida...Now here's another questions for you.
Do you feel that sweat can be used as a guage, in some instances? Let's say we go back to the same two machines...using both for 45 minutes, starting from a resting heart rate. And assume that diet stays constant (ie...same sodium, fluids etc...). The room temperature and humidity level stays the same. But now say that on one machine you sweat like a dog. On the other, you only sweat moderately. Can this be used as an indication of calorie/fat burning levels? And to play it safe, let's give you a day inbetween those two workouts, to be sure we've replenished the lost fluids from the previous activity.

[This message has been edited by chitrick (edited 01-10-2003).]

You ask some excellent questions, and I like the way you're very careful to cover all the ground with regards to potential variables! It shows you're really thinking!

On one hand, given your very thorough comparison of maintained conditions such as temperature, diet, etc., I'd agree with you. It would seem justifiable under a number of circumstances because excess sweating on one vs. the other can measure:

(a) that the body has been trained to be very efficient on one machine, and regardless of how efficient they become at THAT, switching to a different machine, even if it's ordinarily "less intense," that because it's "different" that the one the person got very conditioned on, - it would by default, provide a more challenging and aggressive workout, just because it IS different. (People often experience this who tend to do their cardio primarily on one particular machine and seldom venture forth outside of their established comfort zone, and when they get put on a different cardio machine, even at a gentle pace, the "newness" is "perceived" as more challenging), and

(b) regardless of if it's because of it being "different" or if it's because the 2nd cardio machine is indeed more challenging, if a person is sweating more profusely on one than the other, it would stand to reason the perspiration is a measurement of thermal activity and thus greater calorie burning.

What makes this not so clean cut and dry is that people perspire differently. Some people sweat profusely with only mild workouts. Some people have what is referred to as "seal skin," where they do not sweat, even if they exercise aggressively, but their skin takes on a shiny sheen that resembles that of a seal,...nothing dripping or soaking at all, just like a slight moisture. Some people sweat when brought to a new or different piece of equipment just because it is new, and their physiological response is more reactionary to the change than the equipment.

I'll assume you'd like to (for the sake of argument) maintain all conditions for the sake of comparison,... since those examples would be more when talking to people who are not accustomed to how their bodies respond to various exercises.

Finally, another reason why this may not necessarily be a good indicator is because it depends on their goals. If a person is exclusively and 100% ONLY focused on how many calories are burned during an exercise session, and do not care where the burn comes from, do not care if there is any muscle compromised, do not care about preserving muscle tissue, and are not concerned about actually MAINTAINING any weight loss (just losing those calories), then sweating cooooould be a source of information for comparison for the same person evaluating two different machines.

But, the flip side of that coin is this: IF that same person uses the sweat as an indicator, chooses to do the exercise that produces the most sweat, and happens to be exceeding an ideal heart range for their age/resting heart rate/intensity/goal -- they may be accustomed to performing the exercise and adapt to the intensity, but may actually "burn" lean tissue, and this means despite their adapting to the exercise (and thus altering their perception of exhertion), the reduced lean body mass means they'll now burn fewer calories (at rest as well as on the cardio machine) than they did before.

>>>>>after all that I need to take a breath! http://www.healthboards.com/ubb/smile.gif

Hi Sohogirl.
I tried to reply your post but I do not what happen my reply when to new post so you can jut go to Sammoy and read about my reply to you.

Treadmill is considered the best as far as caloric expendature. However, you have had wonderful results with the elliptical trainer and you ENJOY the workouts so I would say stick with what works. In the long run the difference in calories burned is insignificant compared to the enjoyment you get from a particular workout. The key to success is sticking with your routine and you are much more likely to do that if you enjoy what you are doing. You've done a great job so keep it up!