My cardio routine is 30 minutes on an elliptical machine, Monday through Friday. The last week, or so, I’ve been able to go faster, get my heart rate up higher, and increase my distance as shown on the display. However, I’ve noticed that my calories burned is the same or sometimes less than before my increases. What might cause this?
The main explanation is that the machine calorie burn calculator is a cheap toy and not very reflective of much.
Yeah, I wouldn’t put much stock in those calorie counters. IIRC they only give a very rough estimate based on your heartbeat monitor (which itself is not super accurate), and doesn’t take into account your weight, bodyfat percentage, or other factors.
Just do your time and increase difficulty as needed. Don’t make it complicated.
Ditto on those calorie counters being at best a guesstimate.
It’s also possible that you are getting more efficient at that exercise.
The machine has no idea how many calories you actually burn and it doesn’t matter anyway.
The goal of exercising isn’t to burn calories for the 30 minutes you’re doing it, the goal is to keep your metabolism in good shape and burn more calories for the 23:30 you’re not exercising.
High Intensity Interval Training has proven itself best at this. You’re obviously willing to exercise for 30 minutes a day; instead of focusing on the calories burned for that half hour, focus on improving your cardiovascular fitness and you will burn more calories all day long, even when you sleep.
Stop “burning calories” and start “getting fit.”
+1
True.
But your body does become more efficient with practice, so that it can do this 30 minutes without burning as many calories as when you started exercising. Thus the ‘plateaus’ people encounter doing weight reduction. Like Bob said, think getting fot rather than weight loss.
The op specifically states not only going faster for the same time but heart rate higher. Same activity, same length of time, done faster, at a higher heart rate, that is at higher intensity, is not resulting in fewer calories burned. The machine is wrong, no question.
Plateaus are real but are not the result of increased muscle efficiency or other impacts on “exercise economy” during exercise causing fewer calories burned, especially if the individual maintains or increases the perceived (or heart rate defined) exercise intensity level. That increase in exercise economy is real but if intensity is at least maintained it results in more work being done (be speed or weight moved) for the same calories, not fewer calories during the activity.
Agreed think fitness not fatness.
I would like to echo that the burning of the calories while exercising is a minimal importance. What is important is the building of muscle and toning of your cardiovascular system such that you burn more calories while idle than you would otherwise.
And I say this as a slob who hates exercise.
Um, what? You burn about 300 calories running for a half-hour, depending on speed and body composition. You burn about 30 extra afterward to repair muscle and restock energy stores like glycogen and ATP.
How is 90% “minimal importance” and 10% the important part?
I would like to echo that the burning of the calories while exercising is a minimal importance. What is important is … the impact exercise has on health … huge in many many ways, and the impact it has on body composition (how much of the same weight is lean body mass vs fat, especially central belly fat, thus impact how we feel, function, and look). The fact that it minimally also seems to be a key ingredient in preventing regain after fat loss (likely mostly through brain mechanisms on non-exercise activity thermogenesis and appetite modulation) is bonus points.
Seriously that health bit is the important part.
BTW, the article you linked to is interesting but I do not see where it has anything to do with your statement.