Home› Advice

Cross trainer calories burnt

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,381
Forum Member
✭✭✭
in Advice #1
Hi, usually use the crosstrainer in the gym & burn around 150 calories per 10mins (30min at a time so 450calories) at a relatively high level. Got one second hand & was trying it out at the highest tension level (there are 8 compared to gyms 20 odd) however was only burning 30 calories per 10min according to the dial. Just confused as I still felt I had a good workout the same as in the gym. Is it likely the dial is faulty or do some work less well than others?

Thanks

Comments

  • Dunce-2007Dunce-2007 Posts: 6,452
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #2
    If you felt like you had a good workout afterwards then it's most likely a faulty dial.

    You should try getting a bpm calorie counter and have a workout then see if it reads anything like the one at your gym.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Omron-Intellisence-M7-Pressure-Monitor/dp/B000F7NXCK/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332202679&sr=8-1-fkmr1

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Polar-RCX5-Heart-Rate-Monitor/dp/B00593T3X8/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1332202679&sr=8-4
  • SigurdSigurd Posts: 26,610
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #3
    I don't think calorie counters are to be trusted. The computer I have on my bike includes a calorie counter feature. If I'm going downhill at 25 mph and not pedalling at all it tells me I'm using up lots of calories when of course I'm not, whereas if I'm struggling along into a head-on gale at 10 mph it reckons I'm using hardly any calories at all, though in fact I'm actually working very hard.

    Now it may be that the calorie counters on gym machines are more accurate, but I'm not convinced.
  • c4rvc4rv Posts: 29,584
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #4
    I don't trust the machine either.

    There are some online calculators which can make an estimate based on personal stats and heart rate and VO2 max (effectively your fitness level).

    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx


    Alternatively there are plenty of sites which post calories per hour for various exercises but they don't take into account your fitness level and how hard you are trying.

    http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburned.htm
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,005
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #5
    I agree with the others who've said they're not very reliable. Some new cross trainers were put into my gym and they tell me I've burnt off about 100 calories less in 20 mins than I did on the old ones. I don't think I'm working any less hard. Weird!
  • TeddybleadsTeddybleads Posts: 6,814
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #6
    The calorie counters are only an estimate. Best to measure yourself over distance though even this can be unreliable.

    There's a magic machine at my gym that gives you an extra 5 calories burned a minute. I know it's ridiculous but I always make a bee line for it anyway
  • thefairydandythefairydandy Posts: 3,235
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #7
    Does anyone know anything about distances travelled on different machines at the gym? They all seem to be totally out of whack with the effort you put in - my OH was teasing me about distances when I did 10k in 80 mins on a cross trainer, while he did 20k in 40mins on a bike (like hell he did!).

    The distances seem to have no grounding in reality (well, less so the cross trainer) and have no apparent logic. Really annoying as I've no chances to train for a 40mile walk anywhere else!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11
    Forum Member
    #8
    The only thing the "distances" on gym bikes and cross trainers are useful for is comparing different workouts on the same machine. Resistance and other settings also come in to play to make comparison difficult, unless you compare the same workout with the same settings.

    None of the machines really compare well with workouts outdoors, in terms of distance versus effort, as outdoor conditions vary greatly.

    Doesn't mean you don't get a good workout tho'!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 147
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #9
    Those distances sound about right to me - you would travel further on a bike than if running in the same time period.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,381
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #10
    Yes just tried it out properly today & had broken into a sweat after 10minutes so cant all be bad :p pulse was away up as well so at least I know it is doing something! Just found it strange I was burning 10x less than the gym one
  • thefairydandythefairydandy Posts: 3,235
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #11
    ozchef wrote: »
    Those distances sound about right to me - you would travel further on a bike than if running in the same time period.

    Yes, but are you seriously suggesting that a relatively unfit bloke could do 11 miles/20 km in 40 minutes on a bike? He'd be hard pushed even if it were downhill all the way!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,163
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #12
    *Cf* wrote: »
    Hi, usually use the crosstrainer in the gym & burn around 150 calories per 10mins (30min at a time so 450calories) at a relatively high level. Got one second hand & was trying it out at the highest tension level (there are 8 compared to gyms 20 odd) however was only burning 30 calories per 10min according to the dial. Just confused as I still felt I had a good workout the same as in the gym. Is it likely the dial is faulty or do some work less well than others?

    Thanks

    At the Virgin gym I set the crosstrainer at 8 and put it up to 9 and keep it over 100 (whatever they are measured in) and I tend to use about 100 calories in 10 mins and I work out hard. My partner does it on 12 and uses about 30 more calories than I do. Your dial sounds faulty.
  • c4rvc4rv Posts: 29,584
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #13
    thefairydandy wrote: »
    Does anyone know anything about distances travelled on different machines at the gym? They all seem to be totally out of whack with the effort you put in - my OH was teasing me about distances when I did 10k in 80 mins on a cross trainer, while he did 20k in 40mins on a bike (like hell he did!).

    The distances seem to have no grounding in reality (well, less so the cross trainer) and have no apparent logic. Really annoying as I've no chances to train for a 40mile walk anywhere else!

    your OH distance sounds fine, I do 35k in an hour. But I know that has very little relation to actually ridding on the real road where I struggle to maintain 20kmph.

    Personally I don't isn't really any comparison between brands, its there to measure progress. We have two rowing machines at my gym from different vendors and they both give different reading for the same effort. So as long as your times are getting shorter or your speed is increasing, as long as you are using the same machine then I would not worry about it.

    About the only one I would trust is a running machine where the distance can be measured with a fair degree of certainty.
    Even with exercise bike, the level of resistance does not seem to be consistent so even through distance can be the same, you could easily have burned different amount of calories.
  • Rhino HornRhino Horn Posts: 1,037
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #14
    I think the only way to accurately measure how many calories you have burnt off is to wear a heart rate monitor. I find that the cross trainer, treadmill, bike etc all show more calories burnt than my heart rate monitor.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,163
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #15
    Rhino Horn wrote: »
    I think the only way to accurately measure how many calories you have burnt off is to wear a heart rate monitor. I find that the cross trainer, treadmill, bike etc all show more calories burnt than my heart rate monitor.

    How much more? Are they expensive to buy?
  • Rhino HornRhino Horn Posts: 1,037
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #16
    SupernovaNebula wrote: »
    How much more? Are they expensive to buy?

    for me, it can be as much as 100 calories over 15 minutes.

    Heart rate monitors can be very expensive - some have in-built GPS, but you can buy an entry level Polar heart rate monitor for about £35 on Amazon.
  • c4rvc4rv Posts: 29,584
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #17
    SupernovaNebula wrote: »
    How much more? Are they expensive to buy?

    This is basic but it works and its also compatible with polar equipment so if you have am exercise machine that interfaces with polar equipment it can pick up the pulse from the chest strap on this device.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/PULSE-SONIC-HEART-MONITOR-WATCH/dp/B004Z0L83O/ref=sr_1_87?s=sports&ie=UTF8&qid=1332257410&sr=1-87
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #18
    thefairydandy wrote: »
    Yes, but are you seriously suggesting that a relatively unfit bloke could do 11 miles/20 km in 40 minutes on a bike? He'd be hard pushed even if it were downhill all the way!

    That's about 16.5 mph which is not unbelievably fast if he is on a decent road bike (not mountain bike) even when relatively unfit. Okay he'd know he'd been working but it is certainly doable on a flat road.

    Edit: I should make clear that I agree that you can't compare distances and energy etc on different machines.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,163
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #19
    c4rv wrote: »
    This is basic but it works and its also compatible with polar equipment so if you have am exercise machine that interfaces with polar equipment it can pick up the pulse from the chest strap on this device.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/PULSE-SONIC-HEART-MONITOR-WATCH/dp/B004Z0L83O/ref=sr_1_87?s=sports&ie=UTF8&qid=1332257410&sr=1-87

    Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at home later :)
Sign In or Register to comment.