It’s my normal routine to go to the gym at work, semi-regularly (3 times/week or so at lunch). I’m primarily interested in losing weight, and so I mostly use the cardio machines. To break up the monotony, I tend to rotate around 4 different devices: treadmill, nordic-cross ski thingy, rowing machine, stationary bike. I always do 45 minutes on one machine each trip.
I’ve noticed that in 45 min on the treadmill or nordic-cross I can burn 500 calories fairly readily. On the rowing machine, I can make 400 calories if I push myself; and on the bike, I can barely hit 300 calories.
Am I wasting my time on the bike and rowing machine? Or am I getting more benefit by “working harder” on those machine, even if the calorie meter says I’m not working as hard?
You’re getting your calorie readouts from the machine, right? Those things are notoriously inaccurate and usually based on someone who may be a much different height/weight/gender. I don’t think you’re wasting your time with the other machines; you work different muscles on each one. (one word of advice, make sure you’re using the rowing maching correctly. Most casual gym users do not and have ineffecient workouts or injure themselves. Here’s an instruction page by Concept II, the maker of the most popular rowing machines)
I will add that if you’re serious about losing weight, you should really start lifting. Building muscle will really crank up your metabolism and help you burn fat. Numerous studies have shown that with weight lifting combined with cardio, you retain more muscle and lose more fat than if you just dieted or did cardio alone.
there’s been several new studies that show that doing high intensity interval workouts is superior to longer lower intensity workouts for losing fat…even though the calorie expenditure is less.
back to your question. most of it has to do with the number of muscles you are working…the bike obviously works the fewest and therefore burns the fewest calories, the other three use upper and lower body muscle groups and therefore you’ll burn more calories doing those. Unless you’ve got the incline on the treadmill up to 3%, then are basically just hopping and the calorie count is inaccurate…plus treadmills are high impact and will wear your body down a lot faster and require more recovery time than low impact forms of aerobic excercise. IMO, of the four the nordic track is the best.
Do you have a cite for even one study? Lower intensity workouts will burn fat, in addition to some glucose, but high intensity interval workouts burn only glucose, since only glucose can be used with the limited oxygen available with intervals. Now, if you have a study contra, I’d like to read it. You can, of course, lose fat with high intensity workouts, but only by not causing excess sugars to be converted to fat, but not directly by burning fat.
If your gym has a swimming pool, that is another fine aerobic exercise. One mile of swimming burns as much as four miles of running. The elliptic trainer is also good, and I find that a vigorous workout.
Cross-country skiing has always been noted as the best aerobic workout, even better than running, as you use both lower extremity, upper extremity, and core muscles. Thus, it must burn the most calories. Swimming not as good as either of them IMHO because of the buoyancy of the water; whereas, in the others your body has to fight gravity.
Okay, can someone answer me this? I’m working out to the Body Shapers program every morning from 4:00 to 4:45. In that 45 minute time, they do weights and probably 15 minutes of aerobics/step. And some stretching, but not a lot. Is this little cardio, 5 days a week, going to help me? I only have 8 lbs. to lose. I’m small, and work with 5, 8, and 10 lb. weights. Am I fooling myself?
The studies I’ve seen have to do with the fat-burning effects of lower intensity training. At a lower training intensity, of the total calories burned, you burn a larger percentage of fat calories. At higher intensity, a smaller percentage of fat calories. But, at higher intensities you burn more calories overall so you’re actually burning morefat calories. This explains it a little more clearly. I think people tend to see “fat burning zone” and fellc ompelled to stay under a certian HR when they coudl increase the intensity of the workout and the benefits.
The elliptical had the highest return for the lowest precieved exertion and is a great choice. (plus it’s low impact!) I’ve never seen that stat about swimming tho’. It seems to me it woudl depend on the intensity of the running/swimming.
Hmmm, I don’t think you can automatically assume that cross-country skiing must burn the most calories. Rowing also uses all those muscles. The big difference gravity makes is that resisiting it will help build bone strength and swimming won’t. I’ve also read that swimmers tend to retain more bodyfat than comparable athletes in other sports.
It’ll help, particulalrly if you haven’t worked out much before. I’m a huge proponent of wieght-lifiting. You’ll build muscle and look better even if you don’t lose any weight on the scale. Don’t be afraid of the weights tho’. Biggest mistake I see at the gym is women who restrict themselves to the lightest weights and are scared to go heavier. With weight lifting, you won’t build huge muscles like a man (the women that look like that spend hours in the gym and take drugs), you’ll just look more toned. Anyway, if the exercise is really easy, don’t be afraid to increase the weight, you won’t advance til you do…
** tremorviolet ** I agree with everything you said on your second post, and I noted that high intensity will burn fat, but only indirectly.
How to lift weights is a big question that seems to have no one answer. In main, it depends upon your goals. Slow lifting, with a 2-count on the concentric (lifting), a 2-count pause at the end of the concentric, and a 4-count on the eccentric (recovery) will tax your slow-twitch muscles and will build them up. Fast lifting will tax your fast-twitch muscles, which would be your goal if you are a sprinter. What I do (for what it’s worth) is do three sets of 8-12 reps on the upper body muscles and three sets of 15-20 on the lower extremities and the trunk, but I do the first two sets with the slow lifting as I described above and do the last one with the fast lifting. With the slow lifting, you have to reduce the weight, and you will really - I mean ** really ** - feel the burn, with a comparatively light weight. For example, on the quad machine, with only 65 pounds, that sucker burns, toward the end of the 1st and 2d sets. On the 3d set, I raise the weight to 90 pounds, and there is little burn, but it is more aerobic: I feel my heart rate rising.
Weight lifting is aerobic to some extent, and I read somewhere some time ago, that it does have a cardiovascular component, and if you do what I do, you will acknowledge that.
Recently, a real - and I mean ** real ** - slow lifting was advocated by some “expert” with a count of into the teens, but with only a few reps to one set. I read, following this advice, somewhere that this bestow no additional benefits to the normal way. For sure, don’t do that if you want to exercise the fast twitch muscles.
I agree with what tremorviolet said - those calorie counters on the machines can be very misleading. Most of those calorie counters are designed to count calories for men, which can make a significant difference because in general men have more lean muscle tissue than women and therefore burn more calories overall, as muscle burns more than fat. So, if you’re a guy, the calorie counters are more likely to be accurate; however, those calorie counters are often inaccurate even for guys. Instead, try focusing on keeping your heart rate up in your target range for 30 minutes of your 45 minute work out (using 5-7 minutes on either side for warm-up and cool-down). And don’t use the heart rate monitor on the machine because they are very rarely accurate (they tell you that your heart rate is 20% higher than it actually is). You can purchase a heart rate monitor or bring along a sports watch and take your pulse to find out how you’re doing. Here’s a formula to find out what your heart rate range should be. Once you’re done with warm-up, try keeping your heart rate between 60% - 80% of your maximum heart rate until your cool-down. Just remember, though, that this isn’t a hard and fast rule. If you find it too difficult to work out hard enough to remain within 60-80% of your target (if you find it hard to breathe, feel sick or just can’t work out that hard), just do what you can, and you’ll work your way up.
Subtract your age from 220. The number you get represents your theoretical maximum heart rate. Multiply that figure by .60, and .85, (60%-85%) to determine your training heart rate zone. For a 35-year-old person, for instance, the training range is 111 beats per minute (bpm) to 157 bpm. [220-35 =185; 185 x .60 =111; 185 x .85 =157]
Another thing you might try is the “talk test.” If you are able to carry on a conversation without effort while working out, you’re not working hard enough. If you can carry on a conversation, but in short bursts, you’re working at a good level. If you’re unable to talk at all, you’re working way too hard.
And I also second the idea that it’s a good idea to do some strength training. It’ll give you more muscle, which burns calories more efficiently than fat does. If you don’t have time to spend at the gym, get a few sets of dumbbells and/or a balance ball at home. You can get some videos or books that will teach you how to lift properly if you aren’t familiar with using free weights or a balance ball, and you can lift weights or do a few sets of crunches while watching TV. It’s a great time saver - when I’m really unmotivated to go to the gym, I’ll compromise with myself - if I’m going to be in front of the TV, I have to lift during the commercials until I’ve gotten in 3 sets of 8-10 different exercises.
No, I’m not worried about bulking up. I really have very little muscle, so I’m starting at the bottom and working my way up. I already hurt my shoulder, which is why I got the lighter weights.
I weighed under 100 lbs. for my whole life up until a few years ago. Now I’ve put on weight around my middle (I’m blaming menopause…do you think that’s accurate?). I was having a hard time with the 10 lb. weights, so I got the 5s and 8s, and have been working with them for about 3 weeks. I think I’m ready to move back to the 10s on a few exercises, but I’ll tell ya, sometimes, it’s all I can do to finish my “flys” with even the 5 lb. weights.
Thanks, all, for the feedback. It sounds like I should spend more time on the nordic cross (possibly varying the intensity), and more lifting. (I already occasionally do 1 or 2 sets on 3 or 4 exercises after my cardio workout, but I’ll be a little more rigorous about it.)
A basic heart rate monitor (HRM) isn’t very expensive, and it’s the best way to gauge your efforts on different machines.
The HRM will keep you honest. As you gain more fitness, you will find that you can do the same amount of exercise at a lower heart rate. A workout that used to require a heart rate of 150 you may now be doing at 120. Your heart will not work any harder than it has to, and without a HRM, you may not notice that your heart rate is lower than you want it. Time to increase the intensity and keep an eye on the HRM. The good news is that this means that your fitness is increasing.
jsc1953 , I have one of those Nordic Track ski machines in my apartment. I have found that they do very well in helping me to lose weight. I have done as much as an hour on mine but lately just a half hour due to my work schedule. What I do is a normal speed for five minutes and then go as fast as I can for one minute just to spike my metabolism and then repeat the process for the full hour.
Keep in mind it took me awhile to get myself up to that length of time but it’s been worth it. I’ve lost weight (though I want to lose more) and most importantly, my blood pressure, which was pretty high a few months ago, has dropped to a more normal level.
What I understood you to be saying is that low intensity cardio burns mostly fat. HIIT works differently. the exercise intensity effect on the post-exercise period offers substantial benefits in terms of bodyfat management relative to traditional continuous cardio workouts…ie, it speeds up metabolism for up the next 24 hours…thus burning more fat. the calorie expenditure doing 20 minutes of HIIT can be substantially less than the calorie expenditure of 60 minutes of low intensity…but the fat loss from HIIT will be greater over the course of the next 24 hours vs 1 hour of low intensity.
There are plenty of articles out there that will back up what I said. Just do a google search on HIIT. Of course the way fitness science works is that you could ask the same question to 10 doctors, 10 personal trainers, 10 nutritionalists, and 10 strength coaches and you could very well get 40 different answers.
