LIES! Odometers on treadmill vs. elliptical vs. bike

SabrinaLily
SabrinaLily Posts: 121
in Fitness and Exercise
I'm not buying it. I did 15 minutes on the stationary bike and it said I burned 275 calories. Yet, I sweat the most on the treadmill, feeling like I'm going to die and it would take 30-45 minutes to burn that many calories. Same with the elliptical. I work the hardest on the treadmill to burn the least calories (according to the odometer), work the least on the stationary bike to burn the most. Um- can someone explain this phenomenon? Thanks :flowerforyou:

Replies

  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    They are probably all incorrect to some degree but the difference in burns is attributable to the different biomechanics of each event. Walking creates a different burn than running ... they both differ from cycling (which is heavily dependent on terrain and the amount of mechanical advantage created via gearing) .... and all of those are different motions and burns than an elliptical. The amount of sweat is meaningless when calculating caloric burn.
  • hermann341
    hermann341 Posts: 443 Member
    Best bet is to get a HRM to to measure your calorie burn. Even if an HRM is not the most accurate way to measure calories, it will at least be the most consistent. You can use it on any machine and not have to worry about which machine is the most accurate.
  • SabrinaLily
    SabrinaLily Posts: 121
    Best bet is to get a HRM to to measure your calorie burn.

    Well don't the machines have those built into the handles in theory? My machines do buuuuut still not buying it :)
  • dianesheart88
    dianesheart88 Posts: 111 Member
    Machines do have HRM. Everyone is different and that's why wearing a HRM will absolutely be the closest to accurate you will get when it comes to calorie burn. I wear one each day I workout and I often look at my HRM and at the machines calculation on burn and the elliptical/treadmill/bike are always nearly twice what my HRM says.

    If you want to know what you are burning, you'll need a HRM. I have the Polar FT4 and I love it. Plus it was under a hundred bucks on Amazon.
  • Coffeeholic8
    Coffeeholic8 Posts: 272 Member
    Best bet is to get a HRM to to measure your calorie burn.

    Well don't the machines have those built into the handles in theory? My machines do buuuuut still not buying it :)
    If you are holding onto the handles while you are on the treadmill you aren't working on it as hard as you think you are.:smile::tongue:

    If you are holding on to the handles on the treadmill then it's no surprise to me that the bike and elliptical are showing a higher calorie burn but none of them are that accurate anyway.
  • Phrick
    Phrick Posts: 2,765 Member
    Best bet is to get a HRM to to measure your calorie burn.

    Well don't the machines have those built into the handles in theory? My machines do buuuuut still not buying it :)

    Yes they do but they have to go by rather generic calculations because not everyone who uses the machines is going to have the exact same stats (age, height, weight etc). Having one you and only you use, with your personal data entered, is much much more accurate. You can't rely on the machines.
  • MinnieInMaine
    MinnieInMaine Posts: 6,400 Member
    Yes there is sort of an HRM in the machine but it's not very accurate because the machine doesn't know all your stats. It might ask for age or weight but rarely asks for gender or height. While a good HRM will requires all of that info so it can calculate calorie more accurately. Plus having to hold on means you're not using your upper body/core and therefore not working as hard as you could be. A good measure of accuracy is if the machine gives you more than 10 calories per minute (for non-obese women). Unless you're doing something more intense like running, it's not likely you're burning that much.

    Interesting note on how not all machines are the same - our stationary bikes vastly underestimate calorie burn. You never know!

    FYI, an odometer measures distance, not calories - I was confused when I first read your post.

Categories