Calorie Burn Question?

MiloDublin

On the cross trainer you can read off how many calories you burn during a session. If you want to get fitter and loose weigh what is a reasonable target? I know this is a 'how long is a piece of string' type question and there are many variables. I do 32 minutes and burn around 350 -400 calories.

gordongekko

MiloDublin wrote: »

On the cross trainer you can read off how many calories you burn during a session. If you want to get fitter and loose weigh what is a reasonable target? I know this is a 'how long is a piece of string' type question and there are many variables. I do 32 minutes and burn around 350 -400 calories.

Losing weight is 80% diet. But a very rough guide is 3500 cals Is a pound of fat. So it's much easier to cut the bar of chocolate out of the diet than run on a cross trainer for 30 mins

Stench Blossoms

The calorie counters on machines are complete guesses. I wouldn't put much focus on them. As gordongekko said, look at food calories first.

conzy

400 calories on a cross trainer in 30 minutes is optimistic too unless you were pretty flat out for a lot of it.

Do you enjoy the cross trainer? Or are you using it to create a calorie deficit?

Its a hell of a lot easier eat 1800 cals instead of 2200 cals and save yourself 3 and a half hours a week on a cross trainer. Obviously some cardiovascular activity is important so run or play 5 a side or cross trainer, whatever you enjoy

averagejoe123

Where do they get the figures for calories burnt for machines?

I recently bought an exercise bike that says that for 25 mins of relatively high intensity training I burn 500 cals.... I don't believe these numbers as I know for me to burn this running would be 25 mins at 15km/ph. I was only able to do the run at the height of my fitness and it was very tough and i'm only at about 50-60% of that at the moment.

Anyone know the best way to get accurate readings?

silverharp

close to flatout I can do 350 calories on a cross trainer in 32 minutes with the resistance level set quite high , I simply use it as a relative measure of "effort" for that particular machine though. You would need to be doing half an hour of other stuff on top though if you were serious about improving fitness. in terms of losing weight diet will be the most important factor.
mix it up with a running machine , rower, bike I find boring but 5 or 10 minutes using an interval programme is good for arobic fitness.

pinkypinky

Just use those calorie counters as a gauge.

EG: If you set up the same program each time, see how many calories it uses from session to session. I use them as a guide to how hard I worked on the machine that day.

I've also noticed on bikes that if they are plugged in, i.e. charging, they tot up the calories far slower. 15 mins on the bike might normally show 160 cals burned (allegedly) but plugged in, the same bike only shows 90.

rubadub

they are pretty much always too high a reading.

rubadub wrote: »

....gym equipment manufacturers have a vested interest to overestimate their calorie burning readouts. So you go "oh, that brand of rowing machine is great, I burn wayyy more calories on it than the other brand, but I feel the same after."

It is the opposite of car manufacturers boasting about low mile per gallons, when in reality they can be higher, it is very easy to skew results to favour one thing or another. They are all estimates, use them as scores like a computer game, try and beat your high score next time.

rubadub wrote: »

Just like some restaurants & takeaways are now quoting stupidly low figures for their dishes, to attract people in.