ellipitical machine vs running

karladevil · 07-23-2007, 02:40 PM

i've done a little bit of research on what is better for burning calories and i'v emostly found people saying that they are essentially the same, with the ellipitical being easier on the joints. i don't know if i really buy this though. i mean i can go for an hour on the ellipitical and burn somewhere on the order of 650-750 calories (so the machine says) and run for an hour and only burn a third of the calories but every muscle in body is sore the next day, whereas on the ellipitical no soreness at all. i was wondering if anyone can shed some light on this. it would seem to me that maybe running doesn't burn as many calories during the activity but maybe continues to burn after longer than the ellipitical?! i'm really curious about this. i's like to get the maximum benefit from cardio, and if there is really no difference then it seems like the elliptical is the way to go, but i feel like i'm accomplishing more after running although the machine tells me i'm not. ugh.

BicepGurl · 07-23-2007, 05:06 PM

Hmmm. I don't know if I completely understand or know the answer to your question, but I can tell you this.

The machine lies to you. The calories displayed on the machine are usually very very wrong. The best thing is just to DO the cardio, but if you are worried that much about the calorie level... buy a heart rate monitor. It will give you an accurate calorie reading.

Other things to consider: you should vary the type of cardio you do. why not do the elliptical one day, switch to treadmill the next. You can even do the elliptical for 1/2 your time in one day, then do treadmill for 1/2. Both forms are going to keep your metabolism buzzing afterward.

Good luck

ryncarz · 07-23-2007, 07:07 PM

Are you entering in your exact weight into the machine? I read somewhere the most cardio machines assume a 150 lb weight so anyone under that typically burns less and anyone over that typically burns more. I know that I alternate my cardio every day without really worrying about the calories. As long as I'm "beat" by the end of it, I know I'm doing what I'm supposed to.

enforcerlady · 07-23-2007, 09:02 PM

Yeah, don't even bother looking at the calorie counter on the machines. They are completely worthless IMO.

I would say that running generally burns more calories than the elliptical, but in the end it all comes down to intensity. I'm sure that going balls out on the elliptical with high resistance burns more calories than a 10 minute mile flat jog. On the other hand, I if you run for 30 minutes at an 8:30 pace, you'd burn more calories than going at a leisurely pace on the elliptical.

I say that running probably burns more calories in general because anyone can get on the elliptical and go for 30 minutes, but a lot of those same people would be gassed after just a mile jog.

ryncarz · 07-24-2007, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enforcerlady

Yeah, don't even bother looking at the calorie counter on the machines. They are completely worthless IMO.

I would say that running generally burns more calories than the elliptical, but in the end it all comes down to intensity. I'm sure that going balls out on the elliptical with high resistance burns more calories than a 10 minute mile flat jog. On the other hand, I if you run for 30 minutes at an 8:30 pace, you'd burn more calories than going at a leisurely pace on the elliptical.

I say that running probably burns more calories in general because anyone can get on the elliptical and go for 30 minutes, but a lot of those same people would be gassed after just a mile jog.

Agreed. Running is absolutely more strenuous than the elliptical. Even for me who goes high intensity on the elliptical with a high resistance...running is still much more challenging for me. I just say do what makes you feel the best, you don't have to kill yourself to get a great cardio workout in but make sure that you are giving it your all. Anything less will just be a waste.

karladevil · 07-24-2007, 08:08 AM

yeah i went from weighing 160 to 147 in about 3 weeks. i enter in my exact weight, but i still can't help but feel like the running works me harder than the elliptical machine. i'm not quite to the point where i can run at a solid 10 minute mile pace, i run at about 4.2-4.5 m.p.h. or whatever that means on the treadmill.
i've been out of the gym for a while, but i would really like to get down to about 120-125. i'm 5'3" by the way. i know that weight training is really important and i am incorporating that in as well, but i'm really just more interested in losing the fat right now. i think once i get closer to my goal weight i can worry about whether i need to add more muscle or not.

ryncarz · 07-24-2007, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by karladevil

yeah i went from weighing 160 to 147 in about 3 weeks. i enter in my exact weight, but i still can't help but feel like the running works me harder than the elliptical machine. i'm not quite to the point where i can run at a solid 10 minute mile pace, i run at about 4.2-4.5 m.p.h. or whatever that means on the treadmill.
i've been out of the gym for a while, but i would really like to get down to about 120-125. i'm 5'3" by the way. i know that weight training is really important and i am incorporating that in as well, but i'm really just more interested in losing the fat right now. i think once i get closer to my goal weight i can worry about whether i need to add more muscle or not.

Karladevil, I think it would be smart to incorporate weighttraining into your regimin NOW. Weighttraining helps to build lean muscle. Lean muscle burns more calories. The more calories burned, the more fat lost. See where I'm going? If you are at all nervous about weightraining and thinking that if the scale doesn't go down then you aren't losing fat, think again. Cardio is a part of it, but weightraining and diet are a HUGE part of it as well. I would weight only every now and then and take your measurements instead. That's where you are going to see the difference. Take it from me, I weighed 117 about 3 years ago doing the Atkins diet and just cardio. Sure, I was a smaller size but I was what you call "skinny fat." I lost all of my muscle mass and was flabby even though small. I say, keep doing the cardio, get onto those weights and keep your diet clean. You'll be amazed at your results. I am almost into my third week and I see changes already that I could not have made just doing cardio. Good luck!!

ryncarz · 07-24-2007, 11:45 AM

P.S. I just read that you ARE in fact incorporating the weights already. But it should be a primary focus of your workout along with cardio! Sorry, I didn't read correctly the first time, haha!

karladevil · 07-24-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryncarz

P.S. I just read that you ARE in fact incorporating the weights already. But it should be a primary focus of your workout along with cardio! Sorry, I didn't read correctly the first time, haha!

yeah. i'm not necessarily a newbie to all this. i've just been a slacker for the past 7 months or so. i've had some serious personal issues. i know that diet is really the most important factor in losing weight, and that increasing lean muscle mass is key to increasing resting metabolism. i really want to see some drastic changes asap though. i haven't been hitting the weights too hard, mostly cardio, but i really do know better. i have been lifting, not very heavy, but about twice a week. i do an arm workout with shoulders bi's and tri's, then chest and back, then legs. i know that i really need to be doing something like 3 days on one day just cardio then repeat changing up the order a bit. my diet hasn't been perfect, more like i just don't eat very much at all, under 1,000 calories a day lately. i know that isn't exactly the best way to go, but like i said, i'm really just interested in getting the weight off then doing it right. i'm just so frustrated with the weight gain, i'm just willing to do anything to get to a decent starting point, ya know? ugh.

litlfalafelgirl · 07-24-2007, 08:36 PM

yikes! under 1000! you will stop losing fat and start losing muscle and soon the ability to do any cardio will wave bye bye. trust me, i've been there. it will do more harm than good in the long run to so many aspects of your health. everyone told me: up the healthy calories and lift weights and that will kick in the fat loss.

enforcerlady · 07-24-2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by litlfalafelgirl

yikes! under 1000! you will stop losing fat and start losing muscle and soon the ability to do any cardio will wave bye bye. trust me, i've been there. it will do more harm than good in the long run to so many aspects of your health. everyone told me: up the healthy calories and lift weights and that will kick in the fat loss.

Agreed! don't starve yourself. If you undereat for long enough you will really be hating yourself when your metabolism is at a snail's pace and fat loss becomes nearly impossible. When you mess up your metabolism by undereating the fat will jump on you and stick to you with a vengance as soon as you up the calories to what was once a "normal" level. Seriously, its NOT a good idea to have your calories so low.

karladevil · 07-25-2007, 09:09 AM

what would you suggest would be a good # for calories? i know i want mostly protein, fibrous carbs and good fats. i am taking 3 fish oil capsules with every meal now. i'm just not going anywhere near 2000 calories a day. i'll try to make sure i'm getting at least 1200, but i don't know if i should go much higher than that. i'll make sure i'm doing the weight training at least 4-5 days a week. i'm thinking i'll do the split like i mentioned before going every other day, with cardio 45 minutes on weight days, maybe an hour if i can stand it, and 90 minutes on non-weight days. what do you think?

enforcerlady · 07-25-2007, 11:44 AM

It sounds like you're about my height but a little bit heavier. I would say that 1500 calories is safe bare minimum for someone of your size. I lose steadily at 1700 calories. A better option may be varrying your caloric intake with low, medium, and high calorie days. For example, 1500 would be your low, 1650 would be your medium, and 1800 would be your high. You could do something like medium, low, medium, high, repeat. There are a lot of possibilities. Also, those numbers aren't exact, just and example.

iwanttightabs · 07-26-2007, 09:20 AM

Back on the subject of elliptical vs. treadmill.
I read an article some months back on the subject.
The thing is, ellipticals are a much newer concept than treadmills.
Treadmills have been around for years as well as the movement of walking
and running which has been around since the beginning of time.
Scientists and researchers have been able to really study and
test the calories burned from treadmills for numerous years.
So the treadmills on the market now are quite accurate and represent
the years of research behind them.

Ellipticals on the other hand are a much newer concept than treadmills.
The range of motion and movement are a new concept not to be compared
to anything preceeding it. Researchers are still trying to accurately calculate
the amount of calories burned, but it is much more complicated than calculating treadmills, and they haven't had as many years to research it.

At least thats what I remember from the article!

I hope it helps!

livingloca · 07-29-2007, 03:04 PM

I agree with BicepGurl - alternate your cardio. Treadmill, elliptical, or bike. I do occasionally glance at the calories, but that silly machine doesn't know how much lean muscle mass i am carrying (versus someone else my age and my weight who might be 30% bf).

I just try to enjoy my music, enjoy the "edge" cardio gives me and if I'm bored, i switch it all around. There are days where i don't want to fly on the treadmill and i may just want to "veg" out on the elliptical and some days I may have a knee that might want to take some time off the treadmill....

Overall, to gauge calories "burned" I think its the intensity of whatever you do that makes the difference.