how many calories burned? is that effective?

[*Bunny*]

Great links Bunny!!! I think the most inaccurate calorie counter of all the machines has to be the Tony Little Gazzelle Freestyle machine. I just saw one study showing that it burns around 200 calories an hour no matter what angle you lean into the machine. There's no resistance at all.

You and your dancemat & the Gazzelle ... workout party at your place!

Sarge can work the door!

I'm video taping your infomercial

 

[alex2678]

I saw one of those Gazzelle's at the store and had to try it out. That damn Tony Little makes it look like so much fun. Most embarassing 30 seconds of my life.

How's this for a lazy workout.:

http://www.asseenontv.com/prod-pages/cardio_cruiser.html?gid=

I'm trying it out next time I'm at Sports Authority.

 

[*Bunny*]

I saw one of those Gazzelle's at the store and had to try it out. That damn Tony Little makes it look like so much fun. Most embarassing 30 seconds of my life.

How's this for a lazy workout.:

http://www.asseenontv.com/prod-pages/cardio_cruiser.html?gid=

I'm trying it out next time I'm at Sports Authority.

That is classic ... I'm lmfao right now .. thanks for the ab workout ... everyone is like "mandi wtf are you laughing at ... " as I stare at my computer screen ...

 

[new_start]

great links bunny, thx!

are there any alternatives to using calorie counter that you guys have come across? i was thinking that calorie counters are more appropriate for people who want to lose weight - is that true?

 

[*Bunny*]

great links bunny, thx!

are there any alternatives to using calorie counter that you guys have come across? i was thinking that calorie counters are more appropriate for people who want to lose weight - is that true?

No problem girl/guy? Sorry I HATE to assume & it doesn't specifiy your gender

FYI we are not making fun, just of each other

I'm not sure I understand your question ... calorie counter such as a watch/hr monitor? or like food counter such as fitday?

 

[alex2678]

Calorie counters/heart rate monitors are good measures even if you're not trying to lose weight. If you're trying to increase your stamina/endurance there's probably a thousand different variations of workout programs to follow. Here's one sample:

1. Begin with 3 x 30 minute sessions per week at a heart rate of 60% of maximal heart rate. (MHR = 220 - age).

2. After two weeks of this, increase the workout to 40 minutes in length.

3. After another two weeks, increase the workout length to 45 minutes.

4. After two weeks of this workout, add one more session to a total of four at 40 minutes per session.

5. Now that a stable base has been established we can start increasing the intensity. Two weeks after step four, during one session keep your heart rate at 70% of max.

6. The week after this do two at 60% of MHR and two at 70% of MHR.

7. Two weeks after this change the workouts back to 45 minutes each with 2 at 60% and two at 70%.

8. After two weeks of this give yourself a break. Do two sessions this week at 45 minutes at 65% MHR.

9. For the next week, do two 45 minutes workouts at 60%, one at 75%, and one 30 minute workout at 80%.

10. Increase intensity and duration at desired amounts to achieve your goals.

 

[new_start]

wow very good description there alex, thanks.

i'll probly look into how these programs work out calories used - programs like heart rate monitors etc.

if anyone finds out please post here. thanks and g'night!

 

[poysyn]

Question for the HIIT experts:

For days I do not do HIIT sprints (where I run balls out til I achieve a HR of 180+, then walk until my HR hits 130 bpm)....

Would HIIT cycling be acceptable? When cycling I would sprint to a HR of 170+, then let it subside to 120-130bpm, then sprint again.

I do this for about 45 min. When running, I only go for about 30 min.


Also, anybody know how to correlate age, HR, time, and calories burned?

You could do HIIT cycling, but in my opinion its not as effective as an elliptical or treadmill due to the fact you are only moving your legs on the cycle. When on the treadmill, elliptical, etc you are using both of your largest muscle group (legs and back) thus being more efficient.

If the cycle works for you then use the cycle, but there are surely BETTER HIIT methods, in my opinion.

As for the second question I don't think there really is an answer to that...all I know is the formula to find your ideal max heart rate. (220-age)

 

[vin01]

You could do HIIT cycling, but in my opinion its not as effective as an elliptical or treadmill due to the fact you are only moving your legs on the cycle. When on the treadmill, elliptical, etc you are using both of your largest muscle group (legs and back) thus being more efficient.

If the cycle works for you then use the cycle, but there are surely BETTER HIIT methods, in my opinion.

As for the second question I don't think there really is an answer to that...all I know is the formula to find your ideal max heart rate. (220-age)

I only cycle because I like to be outside, instead of inside on a treadmill, and I HATE to run.

Could one argue that even though cycling does not use upper body, getting the HR into a certain zone is the most important part?

Bunny- you haven't used that Own Zone by Polar have you? Sounds interesting.

 

[*Bunny*]

Bunny- you haven't used that Own Zone by Polar have you? Sounds interesting.

Yes that option is on my HRM. My (telemetry) strap though, VERY worn out

It helps reduce error, but even those HR monitors cannot account for supp use etc... ya know?

Just to be used to gauge progress ... as with any other tracking method