I recently bought a mini-trampoline to do some indoor exercising during the winter. I’ve read several articles about how it’s more efficient than jogging; that it burns more calories and also helps tone… everything. Most articles cite some 1979 NASA report, which I haven’t been able to find. However, these claims all seem to be on websites of companies selling mini-trampolines. I’ve seen several online calorie burning calculators that actually show trampolining as burning less calories than any other form of exercise. I’m just wondering what the truth is. I typically jog on this mini-tamp for 30 - 45 minutes and can’t imagine how doing the exact same motion, just on a flat surface (such as a sidewalk) could be any more or less effective.
I have no clue about which burns more calories, but I do have a couple of comments.
You want the exercise to be less efficient to burn more calories. Efficient means that most of the energy input goes into motion. Not efficient means that a lot of the energy goes into waste heat, which is what you want if you want to burn calories.
I can run for hours on end. That is what humans are meant to do. Trampolining may (or may not) burn more calories, but I sure as hell couldn’t do it for more than about 10-15 minutes straight.
The most effective exercize in the world does nothing unless you do it.
If the trampoline is fun enough for you to do it every day and never skip a session then by all means go with it.
Thanks for replying. I just read an article that said playing XBox for an hour burns 107 calories. Yet, these calorie burning calculators I’ve been looking at say jumping on a trampoline for 45 minutes or so only burn about 191. That seems too high for the XBox and too low for the jogging on a trampoline. :smack:
Does anybody know of a product, or method that actually tells you how many calories you are burning during your workout?
You can? Most people can’t. I’ve always been of the belief that humans were absolutely not meant to run for very long at all, given the high level of running injuries and the fact that only very healthy humans in the prime of life can do it for much more than a few minutes at a time.
Now walking - that’s a sport we’re designed to do. Just about any of us can walk for an hour or two with no previous training involved, and the young, old, and unhealthy can do it as well.
“Most people” are fat slobs. Very healthy? Prime of life? Wow. I’d consider somebody pointedly unhealthy if they couldn’t run a mile, and that takes more than a few minutes. I’d consider myself healthy, if a bit overweight, and I can play a full game of rugby, which involves running for more than an hour. I wouldn’t say I’m very healthy, and I’m certainly not in shape.
By “a few minutes” I mean about ten or fifteen minutes - a slow mile. Do you think most adults can do that? I would say many can, but most? I wouldn’t bet on it.
An hour running with no breaks? Really? I run 3 or 4 times a week in the summer, and though I have run an hour at a time, I couldn’t do it easily if I hadn’t been running with regularity. Maybe I’m wrong, but I just can’t believe that most healthy adults can run an hour without stopping without training for it. Maybe someone who has more real facts can drop in and give us some cites.
I believe we’re both pretty much on the same page, but are exaggerating the extremes of our points. You’re saying what people can do, and I’m saying what people should be able to do. The fact that the argument exists and is valid on both sides is evidence of the sad state of the “average” American these days.