How many calories does an arm ergometer burn?

I recently read that you burn 10 calories per minute if you are an average man and 9 calories for the average woman, on an arm ergometer.

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CycleMechMETs.html

Select the arm option.

If your machine gives watts, watts is energy just as calories is, and there is a conversion.

Sadly HRM won't be very good here either.
You are working smallest muscles in body, and HR will rocket up for the effort. But's it's not really that amount of effort.

If you walked the HR up that high, you'd see the difference.

http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/CycleMechMETs.html

Select the arm option.

If your machine gives watts, watts is energy just as calories is, and there is a conversion.

Sadly HRM won't be very good here either.
You are working smallest muscles in body, and HR will rocket up for the effort. But's it's not really that amount of effort.

If you walked the HR up that high, you'd see the difference.

With respect, I don't think it matters how big the working muscles are.

From the journal of sports science:

Men use the following formula:

Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.2017) + (Weight x 0.09036) + (Heart Rate x 0.6309) -- 55.0969] x Time / 4.184.

Women use the following formula:

Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.074) -- (Weight x 0.05741) + (Heart Rate x 0.4472) -- 20.4022] x Time / 4.184.

What is relevant, in calculating calories, is age, weight, and heart rate
Kind regards,
Ben

Actually, the only thing relevant to calculating calories is your liter Volume of O2 and CO2, age and weight and HR don't matter.
But outside measuring that, the best stat you can tie back to VO2/VCO2 is HR, then you can have something.

The only thing the age and weight and gender bring to the equation, are trying to estimate what your likely VO2max might be compared to the study.

Here's an easier way to use those formulas too. Which is the best you have for HR related calorie burn estimates.
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm

And a link for the Polar funded study is there too for review, that came up with that formula. Even that formula though is leaving out the important HRmax stat, they assume the same 220-age.

And the reason why it won't match up very well for just upper body very specific muscles of this workout, is because your VO2max and HRmax are almost always literally different for different exercises, and not just because you may be better trained at one over the other. But because of the amount of muscle used that oxygen must be supplied to.

That's why cross-country skiers and rowers have some of the highest VO2max scores around, total body muscle involvement. (rowers usually weigh more, so their absolute score is lower, but total is great).
Compared to cyclist and runners, lower body only.
You move on to just upper body stuff, VO2max is even lower.

But that study formula doesn't know that, it's still calculating a VO2 based on stats and running that is higher than reality for the smaller muscle group actually being used.
So it thinks at say HR 120, this is pretty easy effort, if the whole body was really being used that would be true. So you'd get this calorie count x.
In reality though, you are using this much smaller muscle group with smaller VO2max.
So HR 120 is actually a pretty high effort. And should count for more calorie burn.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2691824
Notice they kept the watts the same between lower and upper. In most people, lower body would be much stronger so could push heavier watts.

This shows the difference in possible VO2max during the different exercise.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6493015
"peak oxygen uptake (means +/- SD) of 49 +/- 7 for cycle (CY) and 35 +/- 6 ml X min-1 X kg-1 for arm crank (AC) exercise"

35 to 49 is pretty big difference in VO2max. If that was applied 2 people with all other stats equal, person 49 would beat person 35 in probably every cardio activity.
Use that formula link above for that person doing 2 workouts for 60 min, using both VO2max numbers. Of course, the sitting workout is inflated even then, because formula is assuming running/cycling based on the study.
That's why you end up with VO2max lists like this.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/vo2max.htm

So even your best HRM that has a VO2max score, is likely based on VO2max for running or cycling or estimate from formula assuming that, total lower body. Not a VO2max store for the upper body. Nor HRmax for upper body.

Now if all over athletic for same amount of time, the difference between say running and swimming could be smallish, but difference of 10 VO2max is still decent when looking at estimated calories.

Yeah, basically my ucsf sports doc told me the same thing: that the workout is much less for the same time and effort as stationary cycling, elliptical etc that use big muscles. My knees don't want to hear that.

But maybe I asked the doc the wrong question, because I don't expect control my weight thru exercise but only thru diet. I should have asked what kind of cardio vascular improvements can you get from vigorous HIIT UBE session vs big muscle, same session, same heart rate numbers/intervals.