Machines and Cardiovascular fitness

[SevenStar]

Until recently, I haven't dealt with cardio machines, other than a treadmill and a jump rope (not I machine, I know) Anyway, since I've been dealing with them, I've noticed something - When I'm on the treadmill, After a 1.5 miles or so, I'm sweating like crazy and I'm sucking a little wind. It burns about 180 calories. After the same distance on an eliptical jogger (free runner) I'm sweating, but not winded at all, and burned about 250 calories. After yeat again the same distance on an eliptical stepper, I'm not sweating, not winded at all, but I've burned 280 calories or more. Here's a breakdown, in case no one read all of that or got lost.

distance machine calories burned sweating/winded
1.5 mi treadmill 180 yes
1.5 mi free runner 250 somewhat
1.5 mi elip. stepper 280 no

It seems that the less work done, the more calories burned. Someone at the gym told me that this was because the eliptical machines are designed to work you out more without taxing the body, which doesn't sit right with me. Do these easier machines provide the same cardiovascular benefit? It doesn't seem to me that it does. Also, are "calories burned" results for these machines skewed? The avg person will burn about 150 calories per mile, which is about what I get on a treadmill. Why is it so much higher on the other two machines. Do any of you have any statistics or any info of use?

[The One]

The slower you go, the more fat you will burn. The faster you go, you are simply working your heart more. If you are looking to burn fat weight train and do cardio, but do it slow.

The One

[ElPietro]

Did one machine ask for your weight and another not? The only way to get a proper comparison would really to have a heart monitor that can measure your cals expended, so you have one device taking measurements for each.

I don't see how an elyptical can be more geared towards burning cals...the only thing that it could have is if it's one of those ski-like thingies that have the poles for the arms...on a treadmill you can burn significantly more calories just by swinging your arms etc. Or maybe the ROM in your legs is greater for an elyptical and therefore is making you move more to get to 1.5 miles versus your regular gait on a treadmill.

Obviously I don't know but thought I'd list my thoughts. If you have a heart rate monitor maybe try that to get an accurate guage on each machine.

[Kumkuat]

I've also heard that machines are a inaccurate about how much calories you've burnt. Anyway, I have the same problem. Unless I go super fast like 100+ strides per minute or something on the eliptical machines, I don't really get tired on it. But on the rowing machines, that is a different story. But avoid those gazelle thingies.

Oh yeah, studies have shown that interval training burns more fat than continuous low or high intensity cardio exercise even though the machine says you didn't burn that much calories.

[SevenStar]

all of them ask for your weight.

[xiong]

I would question how exactly they derive the calories burned figure. As an example my wife found an article in consumer reports about the inaccuracy of those body fat composition bathroom scales. It basically said they were of several % and different amounts for men and women.

One thing that I might buy, however, is that machines that work more muscle groups may burn more calories with less physical effort. ie burning 100 calories using just your legs versus 100 using arms and legs. It seems intuitively that it would be easier using more muscle groups.

[fmann]

I think the answer lies in priopreceptors (sp?), or the nerves that indicate to the body motion and position in space. The more parts of the body that are moving, the stronger the sympathetic stimulation to the heart, etc., therefore increasing heart rate, breathing rate, sweating, etc. more dramatically. This also increases your background energy usage (i.e., the energy being used by the body, but not by the muscles), so I wouldn't completely trust those numbers for "calories burned," unless you factored in O2 consumption of the heart, etc..

So by understanding this, you can burn more calories without taxing/increasing your cardiovascular ability, something you've already noted. The difference may be in the time it takes, though.