Treadmill versus cross trainer

If you're entering your weight, age etc. correctly on both then I can't see why it wouldn't be right....

I'm the same - running machine is much more hard work! Only difference might be that the running machine is a higher intensity workout and therefore after the exercise your metabolism might be higher than when you finish the cross-trainer - therefore you might burn more calories after the exercise on the running machine,...

anyone else know if this is correct? as I'm no expert - just read loadsa articles info etc...

I burn around the same amount of calories on the cross trainer as i do brisk walking on the treadmill. Around 100 every 10mins.

I much prefer the cross-trainer, it's much more hard work but tones up your muscles and is really good for your legs and bum! Cross-trainer burns more calories quicker too, don't get me wrong it isn't always exact but nothing is! Love T

Intensity is intensity. In comparing treadmill vs cross trainer, one is not inherently better than the other. If you are working at the same aerobic intensity, you will experience the same caloric burn, regardless of the exercise modality. Some people find that their perceived exertion is less when running vs other forms of exercise. In that case, they will often burn more calories and see better results from running on the treadmill--not because running is inherently "better", but because they are actually working at a higher intensity.

You cannot compare machine calories-comparing machine treadmill calories to machine cross trainer/elliptical calories is especially problematic. All cross trainers have different movements and so each manufacturer must develop their own calorie calculation formula. Developing an accurate formula takes a lot of research, so many manufacturers cut corners--the result is that the calorie calculations for cross trainers/ellipticals are all over the map. The only manufacturer that extensively tests their cross trainers is Life Fitness (and even then, the data is most accurate only in models made since 2005). HRMs help in this case, but also have shortcomings. That is because heart rate is higher during arm work for comparable intensities. If you are doing a cross trainer with significant arm component, chances are the HRM is overestimating caloric burn somewhat because the elevated HR makes the HRM think you are working harder. It's not a big overestimation -- and in most cases the HRM is still more accurate than the cross trainer machine number - but it probably is a little high.

EPOC depends almost entirely on intensity. So again, neither machine has an advantage in that department. As stated in the first paragraph, many people will naturally work harder when running than they will on a cross trainer, but, theoretically, both should result in an equivalent EPOC if they are performed at the same intensity.

It seems logical that cross trainers that involve arm work result in greater "toning" than running on a treadmill, and I suppose if you take small enough measurements, that is true. However, the amount of muscle strengthening that occurs during cardio exercise is modest at best. The strength increase is only the minimum necessary to meet the resistance demands of the exercise movement. Since those demands are relatively small, the amount of adaptation is minimal/modest as well--it is noticeable compared to a sedentary person, but not comparable to gains that can be achieved with strength training.

The biggest difference between the two is the impact. For people who cannot run because they cannot tolerate the impact--even on a cushioned treadmill--the cross trainer is ideal, and usually results in a much higher quality workout than a bike or stepper. Otherwise, it is almost entirely a matter of personal preference.

My treadmill doesn't have the option to enter in my age and weight, would this effect the supposed calories burned? I just did a brisk walk for 30 mins and burned 200 calories. Whereas I can burn 300 calories in 30 minutes on my Exercycle.