eliptical trainers calories burned?
MyOnlyNara
Posts: 5 Member
Hi.
I have yet to buy one of those heart rate accessories.
So I want to try to "calculate" calories burned on the treadmill or elliptical trainer machines.
The machine calories burned seem very inaccurate so is there a way to go about calculating this by RPM or speed?
Thank you.
I have yet to buy one of those heart rate accessories.
So I want to try to "calculate" calories burned on the treadmill or elliptical trainer machines.
The machine calories burned seem very inaccurate so is there a way to go about calculating this by RPM or speed?
Thank you.
0
Replies
-
Does the machine give you an option to enter your weight? If it does, entering your weight will make it a bit more accurate. I just use the calorie count MFP gives me when I log it.. that's usually right around the same number the elliptical gives me.
You could also start looking up calories burned calculators online. Enter your information and the exercise in a bunch of different calculators, and see what they say. Then maybe you can use that information to help you decide what you think you're burning.0 -
distinctlybeautiful wrote: »Does the machine give you an option to enter your weight? If it does, entering your weight will make it a bit more accurate. I just use the calorie count MFP gives me when I log it.. that's usually right around the same number the elliptical gives me.
You could also start looking up calories burned calculators online. Enter your information and the exercise in a bunch of different calculators, and see what they say. Then maybe you can use that information to help you decide what you think you're burning.
Thank you. The ones that MFP gives me is oddly high for 30 minutes so I started questioning it.
0 -
MFP does grossly overestimate calorie burns. You'll see that the rule of thumb here is to eat only 50-85% of exercise calories due to the inaccuracy in both machine and MFP database.
An easy way to tell is if you are on track with your weightloss goal. For example, using calorie burn alone (despite other factors being a part of this), if I have my goal set to lose 1lb a week but am only losing . 5lb, and all other factors are accounted for such as weighing food and accurate logging, chances are my burn is incorrect. So I might start by only eating 85% and continuously lowering it until I see those goals line up.0 -
My elitixal says I can burn 530 calls in half a hour. Or arlund there. That includes cool down and warm up. ? I donno how accurate that is but it makes me out my age and weight in every time prior to a workout0
-
Even entering weight, age and gender, the machine burns (Precor) are really high. It tells me I burn 700 in 60 minutes. HRM says ... 400.
0 -
530 for 30 minutes seems very high0
-
Wow, 530 is a lot! MFP tells me 270 for 30 minutes and the actual machine told me 220 or something like that (and I didn't enter my weight or anything). I just eat back 50% of my estimated calories. It's worked well for me so far!0
-
victoria_1024 wrote: »Wow, 530 is a lot! MFP tells me 270 for 30 minutes and the actual machine told me 220 or something like that (and I didn't enter my weight or anything). I just eat back 50% of my estimated calories. It's worked well for me so far!
That seems at least reasonable, well unless your house is scaled huge and you are really 8 feet tall and much larger than you look.
For treadmills that measure distance, you can use a standard accepted distance equation for walking or running. For net numbers one that many accept is .30 x weight x miles (walking) and .63 x weight x miles (running). That takes away the RMR that many machines add.
Elliptical machines can be tricky as they really don't work the same as walking or running. Some calculate distance differently and based on ramp and/or resistance as well. Some add RMR, some don't. And when all is said and done even the ones with a lot of data inputs for speed/resistance/incline are only as good as the formula that spits out the number.
But similar to walking or running, any machine where you support or move your weight is obviously influenced by the programmed weight. A larger person moving just as fast will burn more calories than a smaller one.Even entering weight, age and gender, the machine burns (Precor) are really high. It tells me I burn 700 in 60 minutes. HRM says ... 400.
Do you actually have an HRM that pairs to the machine? We own a Precor machine and the HRM alters the calorie burn calculations based on your actual heart rate. So if you are below average BPM for your age it would subtract calorie burn.
The machine we have does seem to include RMR, but if I subtract that factor, the calculation on the machine seems very in line with stardard formulas that are accepted, based on the miles estimation number the machine spits out. At my weight of 180, 700 calories per hour is a solid effort, probably around 5 miles. I've topped 800 on a somewhat regular basis, and I think I would hit max breathing ability and VO2max capability in the range of 900 calories per hour calculated. And that would be freaking hard work for sure.0 -
14 mins on elliptical at resistance of 16 (max is 25) and 6km/hr gives me 100 calories burned by HRM ..and yes for me that's accurate (slightly under but only by 10% I reckon)
Add 30lbs, remove fitness, drop resistance to 6-8 and I was burning 100 cals in 10 mins0 -
To give you another point of reference...
I've used an Eliptical cross trainer for the last 5 years (a Spirit eGlide to be precise) and have used it in combination with its own heart rate monitor as well as my Fitbit. What I've found is, the calories burned depend which heart rate zone I spent the most time in during my workout.
For example: on average for the past week my Fitbit says I did 30 mins of Eliptical with 5 mins at peak zone (+154bpm), 22 mins cardio zone (+127bpm), & 3 mins fat burn (+91bpm). With that range of intentisy I burn 270 calories each workout, which I do daily. My heart rate zones are calculated based on my age, sex, etc.
Average RPM for my workouts vary, but on average in 30 mins my cross trainer tells me I've travelled 2.5 miles. That said, I wouldn't count myself as particularly fit so my heart will behave differently to someone else's, thus calorie burn will also vary.
All this to say: it really does matter what zone your heart goes to, and what your zone is, to get an accurate read on calorie burned. I wouldn't try to replace this with a complex view of resistance, speed, distance etc.
I suggest holding your wrist and counting beats the old fashioned way to get an idea, perhaps 3 mins in, 15 mins in, and 25 mins into your workout. I also suggest looking up what your cardio and peak zones are for your individual needs. This should allow you to cross check what MFP is telling you based on how long you spend in each zone.
I hope this helps.-1 -
To give you another point of reference...
I've used an Eliptical cross trainer for the last 5 years (a Spirit eGlide to be precise) and have used it in combination with its own heart rate monitor as well as my Fitbit. What I've found is, the calories burned depend which heart rate zone I spent the most time in during my workout.
For example: on average for the past week my Fitbit says I did 30 mins of Eliptical with 5 mins at peak zone (+154bpm), 22 mins cardio zone (+127bpm), & 3 mins fat burn (+91bpm). With that range of intentisy I burn 270 calories each workout, which I do daily. My heart rate zones are calculated based on my age, sex, etc.
Average RPM for my workouts vary, but on average in 30 mins my cross trainer tells me I've travelled 2.5 miles. That said, I wouldn't count myself as particularly fit so my heart will behave differently to someone else's, thus calorie burn will also vary.
All this to say: it really does matter what zone your heart goes to, and what your zone is, to get an accurate read on calorie burned. I wouldn't try to replace this with a complex view of resistance, speed, distance etc.
I suggest holding your wrist and counting beats the old fashioned way to get an idea, perhaps 3 mins in, 15 mins in, and 25 mins into your workout. I also suggest looking up what your cardio and peak zones are for your individual needs. This should allow you to cross check what MFP is telling you based on how long you spend in each zone.
I hope this helps.
Sorry to tell you but heart rates zones were debunked years ago
Still up in gyms and on machines but higher intensity = higher calorie burn and HRMs translate to calories in steady state only0 -
Before I purchased my fitbit Charge HR - I calculated my calorie burns on the eliptical to be half of what was shown on the screen. After repeating this whilst wearing my fitbit and working out for the same duration, this was pretty accurate
0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »530 for 30 minutes seems very high
I agree. I usually do a vigorous elliptical workout and can burn about 600-625 in about 60 minutes for a total of about 4.5 - 4.75 miles and those are the calories the machine tells me I'm burning after entering my age and weight so 530 for 30 minutes seems really high.0 -
PinkPixiexox wrote: »Before I purchased my fitbit Charge HR - I calculated my calorie burns on the eliptical to be half of what was shown on the screen. After repeating this whilst wearing my fitbit and working out for the same duration, this was pretty accurate
That would depend more on the machine though. A Fitbit doesn't calculate load. Any decent machine does. Neither is likely to be exact, but measured work is always part of the picture.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »PinkPixiexox wrote: »Before I purchased my fitbit Charge HR - I calculated my calorie burns on the eliptical to be half of what was shown on the screen. After repeating this whilst wearing my fitbit and working out for the same duration, this was pretty accurate
That would depend more on the machine though. A Fitbit doesn't calculate load. Any decent machine does. Neither is likely to be exact, but measured work is always part of the picture.
The HRM is likely to be a far more accurate estimate for steady state cardio on an elliptical though, particularly if correctly set up to body stats. I don't think she's wrong to use it as a leveller in this instance0 -
robertw486 wrote: »PinkPixiexox wrote: »Before I purchased my fitbit Charge HR - I calculated my calorie burns on the eliptical to be half of what was shown on the screen. After repeating this whilst wearing my fitbit and working out for the same duration, this was pretty accurate
That would depend more on the machine though. A Fitbit doesn't calculate load. Any decent machine does. Neither is likely to be exact, but measured work is always part of the picture.
The HRM is likely to be a far more accurate estimate for steady state cardio on an elliptical though, particularly if correctly set up to body stats. I don't think she's wrong to use it as a leveller in this instance
I agree. The heart rate can be used as a indicator of load. (This is the Charge HR). A lot of people talk about being exact. The focus should be really on whether your methods are helping you to reach your goals. You can always adjust.
0 -
Either device is subject to the flaws of the algorithms used to calculate the relationship between measures of power and heart rate. Power cannot be denied and is absolute. Heart rate is a measure of the efficiency of the bodys systems in relationship to power output. Though the measure of HR is absolute, it really means little without a measure of power, even in steady state cardio. The absolute measure of power means little without the relationship of heart rate. Both stated speaking in terms of calorie burn.
Really without direct testing to match either type of device to a unique person, they are both using estimations and averages somewhere in the various formulas that determine what calorie burn they spit out. And in both cases, if the algorithm is flawed, even proper setup and "cheating" the devices with weight inputs and such might only fool the device in a specific window of exercise level.
Work is work. Without the relationship to HR in a human, it's a useless measure.
HR is HR. Without the relationship to work in a human, it's a useless measure.
Both combined, properly, are useful measures.
0 -
Even entering weight, age and gender, the machine burns (Precor) are really high. It tells me I burn 700 in 60 minutes. HRM says ... 400.
^^I use this machine as well. 60 minutes plus cool down, but I get around 550 calories burned.
Depending on where you get the information from, I see anywhere from 300 (probably a little low, but close to accurate) to 700 (very high).
Not much of an issue for me though. I just am grateful to being moving more and calorie burn means very little to me. I was unable to walk up a flight of stairs without becoming winded, morbidly obese, and almost sedentary when I began MFP almost 4 years ago. At age 64, I am in the best shape of my life, since my late 20's. Normal weight for the first time in decades. It is all good for me. Anything was a huge improvement.
0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »Even entering weight, age and gender, the machine burns (Precor) are really high. It tells me I burn 700 in 60 minutes. HRM says ... 400.
^^I use this machine as well. 60 minutes plus cool down, but I get around 550 calories burned.
Depending on where you get the information from, I see anywhere from 300 (probably a little low, but close to accurate) to 700 (very high).
Not much of an issue for me though. I just am grateful to being moving more and calorie burn means very little to me. I was unable to walk up a flight of stairs without becoming winded, morbidly obese, and almost sedentary when I began MFP almost 4 years ago. At age 64, I am in the best shape of my life, since my late 20's. Normal weight for the first time in decades. It is all good for me. Anything was a huge improvement.
Just for a reference, as far as I know all Precor elliptical machines in the last few decades or so are influenced by the heart rate. So if a person uses the hand grip heart rate monitors, or a chest strap that pairs, it will influence calorie burn. If HR isn't used, it defaults to the algorithm and programmed weight/age/sex databases.
I'm also reasonably certain that all recent Precor machines add RMR to the readout, which skews the numbers upward.
But either way, if it's working for you and getting you in shape, that's the biggest factor. All the variables and errors don't change fitness improvements!0 -
The machine monitors and HRM's can give you a decent basis of calories burned but they are subjective and the accuracy is highly dependent upon other factors, such as age, weight and intensity of exercise. The most accurate I've gotten from a machine is when I punch in my age, weight and hold the heart rate monitor hand grips the entire workout. I've judged how accurate it was based on eating 100% of my exercise calories back and still managing to lose my goal weekly weight. However, even that doesn't mean that the machine monitor is accurate as each person's body is different and have different TDEE's. I also lift heavy weights that I don't track but I can't assign all of my extra fat loss from caloric burns associate with weight training as lifting doesn't generally burn a lot of calories in and of itself. In my opinion, monitors are a good guide but you can't rely on their accuracy. If your eating is on point, you should use them as a guide to adjust your level of exercise intensity to achieve your weekly weight loss goals. My two cents.0
-
robertw486 wrote: »Either device is subject to the flaws of the algorithms used to calculate the relationship between measures of power and heart rate. Power cannot be denied and is absolute. Heart rate is a measure of the efficiency of the bodys systems in relationship to power output. Though the measure of HR is absolute, it really means little without a measure of power, even in steady state cardio. The absolute measure of power means little without the relationship of heart rate. Both stated speaking in terms of calorie burn.
Really without direct testing to match either type of device to a unique person, they are both using estimations and averages somewhere in the various formulas that determine what calorie burn they spit out. And in both cases, if the algorithm is flawed, even proper setup and "cheating" the devices with weight inputs and such might only fool the device in a specific window of exercise level.
Work is work. Without the relationship to HR in a human, it's a useless measure.
HR is HR. Without the relationship to work in a human, it's a useless measure.
Both combined, properly, are useful measures.
Read it twice
Still don't follow ...what do you mean by "measure of power" ...the algorithm is based on the relationship between HR and oxygen uptake under specific conditions eg steady state ...eg elliptical at steady intensity fits
Can you use fewer words? In general 0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Either device is subject to the flaws of the algorithms used to calculate the relationship between measures of power and heart rate. Power cannot be denied and is absolute. Heart rate is a measure of the efficiency of the bodys systems in relationship to power output. Though the measure of HR is absolute, it really means little without a measure of power, even in steady state cardio. The absolute measure of power means little without the relationship of heart rate. Both stated speaking in terms of calorie burn.
Really without direct testing to match either type of device to a unique person, they are both using estimations and averages somewhere in the various formulas that determine what calorie burn they spit out. And in both cases, if the algorithm is flawed, even proper setup and "cheating" the devices with weight inputs and such might only fool the device in a specific window of exercise level.
Work is work. Without the relationship to HR in a human, it's a useless measure.
HR is HR. Without the relationship to work in a human, it's a useless measure.
Both combined, properly, are useful measures.
Read it twice
Still don't follow ...what do you mean by "measure of power" ...the algorithm is based on the relationship between HR and oxygen uptake under specific conditions eg steady state ...eg elliptical at steady intensity fits
Can you use fewer words? In general
Less words is hard, so I'll try another example.
Measure of power. Could be many things, but in real life terms MPH for one hour is a good example.
For the sake of example, you now have an identical twin, Rabbitjb2. You are both capable of the same running pace for an hour, say 5 MPH. Your weight is exactly the same, as is food intake, and your stride while running. So you would have the same measure of power to go 5 miles in one hour. Moving your weight at 5 MPH for one hour. Power is power, HR does not change that. It took the same amount of energy to move either of you.
BUT you go to the gym and lift on a regular basis, but no cardio. Rabbitjb2 goes and does cardio on a regular basis, but does not lift. She would in this example be more efficient at oxygen uptake due to differences in training methods, and most likely have a lower HR for that reason. And for that reason, she would burn less calories doing the exact same amount of work, while doing that run.
If one person has more cardio efficiency, they can operate at the same heart rate level, but they are moving faster when you go on that run to reach the same heart rate.
For every unknown, there is more room for error. In this case neither your Fitbit or my elliptical machine knows our actual oxygen uptake in relationship to our HR, they are assumptions. This is not to say that removing unknowns ensures accuracy. My machine can measure workload and energy directly vs most wearables not GPS enabled calculate say steps. But if the machine with more inputs has a screwed up algorithm, the wearable with fewer direct inputs might be more accurate.
I've more or less accepted that without going and getting gas exchange tests done, nothing is really going to be all that accurate for calorie burn specific to a given person. The industry for any type of wearable or machine has to make assumptions. If we happen to be close to those assumptions they used, they have great potential. If we aren't, it's just another thing we have to adjust for using other feedback loops like the simple weight scale.0 -
MyOnlyNara wrote: »Hi.
I have yet to buy one of those heart rate accessories.
So I want to try to "calculate" calories burned on the treadmill or elliptical trainer machines.
The machine calories burned seem very inaccurate so is there a way to go about calculating this by RPM or speed?
Thank you.
They are highly inaccurate. Take that number, shave off about 25%-30% and you're good to go.0 -
distinctlybeautiful wrote: »Does the machine give you an option to enter your weight? If it does, entering your weight will make it a bit more accurate. I just use the calorie count MFP gives me when I log it.. that's usually right around the same number the elliptical gives me.
You could also start looking up calories burned calculators online. Enter your information and the exercise in a bunch of different calculators, and see what they say. Then maybe you can use that information to help you decide what you think you're burning.
No, entering weight does not make it more accurate. The number on any treadmill or elliptical is always anywhere from 150-250 calories higher than the number I get from my heart rate monitor. While both are estimates, I know that my heart rate monitor is most accurate because I lost 44 pounds and have been maintaining for 2 years, using my heart rate monitor for about 2.5 years.0 -
OK thanks for the explanation
I see we are back to the marginal edges / the minutiae which don't actually matter to me...because the estimates and my feedback from monitoring my own progress over time are enough accuracy
I may be a data geek, but the analyst in me is experienced enough to appreciate how to not get overwhelmed by the bits that do not matter and to focus out on the major elements that do
Estimates are good enough
At least that's what I believe is important0 -
OK thanks for the explanation
I see we are back to the marginal edges / the minutiae which don't actually matter to me...because the estimates and my feedback from monitoring my own progress over time are enough accuracy
I may be a data geek, but the analyst in me is experienced enough to appreciate how to not get overwhelmed by the bits that do not matter and to focus out on the major elements that do
Estimates are good enough
At least that's what I believe is important
This exactly !!
Any method is just an estimate. Don't get hung up on the little stuff ! There's no need to spend time doing countless calculations to find out about what you are burning on the elliptical. Do your best, and progress. No need to sweat the small stuff !0 -
The point of heart rate estimate isn't to figure out the work being done onto the exercise equipment.robertw486 wrote: »Either device is subject to the flaws of the algorithms used to calculate the relationship between measures of power and heart rate. Power cannot be denied and is absolute. Heart rate is a measure of the efficiency of the bodys systems in relationship to power output. Though the measure of HR is absolute, it really means little without a measure of power, even in steady state cardio. The absolute measure of power means little without the relationship of heart rate. Both stated speaking in terms of calorie burn.
Really without direct testing to match either type of device to a unique person, they are both using estimations and averages somewhere in the various formulas that determine what calorie burn they spit out. And in both cases, if the algorithm is flawed, even proper setup and "cheating" the devices with weight inputs and such might only fool the device in a specific window of exercise level.
Work is work. Without the relationship to HR in a human, it's a useless measure.
HR is HR. Without the relationship to work in a human, it's a useless measure.
Both combined, properly, are useful measures.
HR estimating calorie burns works because it correlates to a certain amount of blood moving through the body that correlates with a certain amount of oxygen use, which by chemistry correlates with amount of glucose or fatty acids oxidized. Load on the machine doesn't really come into it.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Either device is subject to the flaws of the algorithms used to calculate the relationship between measures of power and heart rate. Power cannot be denied and is absolute. Heart rate is a measure of the efficiency of the bodys systems in relationship to power output. Though the measure of HR is absolute, it really means little without a measure of power, even in steady state cardio. The absolute measure of power means little without the relationship of heart rate. Both stated speaking in terms of calorie burn.
Really without direct testing to match either type of device to a unique person, they are both using estimations and averages somewhere in the various formulas that determine what calorie burn they spit out. And in both cases, if the algorithm is flawed, even proper setup and "cheating" the devices with weight inputs and such might only fool the device in a specific window of exercise level.
Work is work. Without the relationship to HR in a human, it's a useless measure.
HR is HR. Without the relationship to work in a human, it's a useless measure.
Both combined, properly, are useful measures.
Read it twice
Still don't follow ...what do you mean by "measure of power" ...the algorithm is based on the relationship between HR and oxygen uptake under specific conditions eg steady state ...eg elliptical at steady intensity fits
Can you use fewer words? In general
Less words is hard, so I'll try another example.
Measure of power. Could be many things, but in real life terms MPH for one hour is a good example.
For the sake of example, you now have an identical twin, Rabbitjb2. You are both capable of the same running pace for an hour, say 5 MPH. Your weight is exactly the same, as is food intake, and your stride while running. So you would have the same measure of power to go 5 miles in one hour. Moving your weight at 5 MPH for one hour. Power is power, HR does not change that. It took the same amount of energy to move either of you.
BUT you go to the gym and lift on a regular basis, but no cardio. Rabbitjb2 goes and does cardio on a regular basis, but does not lift. She would in this example be more efficient at oxygen uptake due to differences in training methods, and most likely have a lower HR for that reason. And for that reason, she would burn less calories doing the exact same amount of work, while doing that run.
No. You are on point with a lot of your comments but not this one. Interestingly, you have the right definition in one paragraph, but draw an inaccurate conclusion in the next.
Yes, it takes "the same amount of energy to move" two people with the same weight. So if it takes the same energy, one cannot then say that one person "would burn less calories doing the exact same amount of work".
In the absence of gross biomechanical anomalies or medical conditions, energy use, and thus calories burned, will be the same regardless of fitness level. The energy cost of running 5 mph is relatively fixed. The reason why the trained person has a lower HR and lowered perceived exertion is because that energy cost represents a LOWER percentage of their maximum, not because of huge differences in "efficiency". The "more efficient at oxygen uptake" you note is part of the increase in aerobic capacity.
The effect of "mechanical efficiency" is modest at best.0 -
The point of heart rate estimate isn't to figure out the work being done onto the exercise equipment.robertw486 wrote: »Either device is subject to the flaws of the algorithms used to calculate the relationship between measures of power and heart rate. Power cannot be denied and is absolute. Heart rate is a measure of the efficiency of the bodys systems in relationship to power output. Though the measure of HR is absolute, it really means little without a measure of power, even in steady state cardio. The absolute measure of power means little without the relationship of heart rate. Both stated speaking in terms of calorie burn.
Really without direct testing to match either type of device to a unique person, they are both using estimations and averages somewhere in the various formulas that determine what calorie burn they spit out. And in both cases, if the algorithm is flawed, even proper setup and "cheating" the devices with weight inputs and such might only fool the device in a specific window of exercise level.
Work is work. Without the relationship to HR in a human, it's a useless measure.
HR is HR. Without the relationship to work in a human, it's a useless measure.
Both combined, properly, are useful measures.
HR estimating calorie burns works because it correlates to a certain amount of blood moving through the body that correlates with a certain amount of oxygen use, which by chemistry correlates with amount of glucose or fatty acids oxidized. Load on the machine doesn't really come into it.
I like what you said. The focus isn't necessarily with regard to the work/load on the machine, but the work/load of the heart which HR is measuring. I would like to hear more about how work load on the heart correlates with the oxidation/calorie burning process.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Either device is subject to the flaws of the algorithms used to calculate the relationship between measures of power and heart rate. Power cannot be denied and is absolute. Heart rate is a measure of the efficiency of the bodys systems in relationship to power output. Though the measure of HR is absolute, it really means little without a measure of power, even in steady state cardio. The absolute measure of power means little without the relationship of heart rate. Both stated speaking in terms of calorie burn.
Really without direct testing to match either type of device to a unique person, they are both using estimations and averages somewhere in the various formulas that determine what calorie burn they spit out. And in both cases, if the algorithm is flawed, even proper setup and "cheating" the devices with weight inputs and such might only fool the device in a specific window of exercise level.
Work is work. Without the relationship to HR in a human, it's a useless measure.
HR is HR. Without the relationship to work in a human, it's a useless measure.
Both combined, properly, are useful measures.
Read it twice
Still don't follow ...what do you mean by "measure of power" ...the algorithm is based on the relationship between HR and oxygen uptake under specific conditions eg steady state ...eg elliptical at steady intensity fits
Can you use fewer words? In general
Less words is hard, so I'll try another example.
Measure of power. Could be many things, but in real life terms MPH for one hour is a good example.
For the sake of example, you now have an identical twin, Rabbitjb2. You are both capable of the same running pace for an hour, say 5 MPH. Your weight is exactly the same, as is food intake, and your stride while running. So you would have the same measure of power to go 5 miles in one hour. Moving your weight at 5 MPH for one hour. Power is power, HR does not change that. It took the same amount of energy to move either of you.
BUT you go to the gym and lift on a regular basis, but no cardio. Rabbitjb2 goes and does cardio on a regular basis, but does not lift. She would in this example be more efficient at oxygen uptake due to differences in training methods, and most likely have a lower HR for that reason. And for that reason, she would burn less calories doing the exact same amount of work, while doing that run.
No. You are on point with a lot of your comments but not this one. Interestingly, you have the right definition in one paragraph, but draw an inaccurate conclusion in the next.
Yes, it takes "the same amount of energy to move" two people with the same weight. So if it takes the same energy, one cannot then say that one person "would burn less calories doing the exact same amount of work".
In the absence of gross biomechanical anomalies or medical conditions, energy use, and thus calories burned, will be the same regardless of fitness level. The energy cost of running 5 mph is relatively fixed. The reason why the trained person has a lower HR and lowered perceived exertion is because that energy cost represents a LOWER percentage of their maximum, not because of huge differences in "efficiency". The "more efficient at oxygen uptake" you note is part of the increase in aerobic capacity.
The effect of "mechanical efficiency" is modest at best.
I suspect we simply see a difference in communicating the same thing. You are stating lower percentage of maximum (output, O2 uptake) while I state is as efficiency. Working at a lower level of maximum is more efficient (O2 uptake) for the same amount of work. My intent was to give an example of mechanical efficiency being the same with the twins, only uptake efficiency and the impact on heart rate differing.
Gas exchange efficiency lowers heart rate. Between the lower rate of the heart contractions and the muscle used for the breathing part of the equation, the calorie burn drops. The heart is among the most energy intensive organs in the body so variances in heart rate and respiration muscles impact calorie burn.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions