Elliptical vs running

n.e.mich

Active Member
Matters what your goal is, if looking just to lose fat either or works. Try to keep you heart rate between 125 - 135 bpm, any higher and you body won't transition from utilizing glycogen to fat storages as fuel. If training for a 5k, 10k etc.. You need to hit the road.



No you don't, I ran a 5k and 2 10k races last summer after strictly running/training on a treadmill. My buddy who ran in one of the 10k's with me said the same thing a couple months before the race (he only runs outside), proved him wrong too.
 

KangarooNokona

Kangabilly
No you don't, I ran a 5k and 2 10k races last summer after strictly running/training on a treadmill. My buddy who ran in one of the 10k's with me said the same thing a couple months before the race (he only runs outside), proved him wrong too.

I think he was referring to running in general instead of using the elliptical.
 

Dirt27

Cage Bomb Hero
Due to knee surgery I limit myself from running now and stick to a stationary bike, stair master, or elliptical. My question is I noticed a bigger difference in my mid section when I was running than I am on the elliptical even though I'm going for a longer period of time. Any bro science on why or if running is that much more effective? My diet is better now than it was when I did run so kind of wondering wtf is up lol

The reason you notice the bigger difference is because running is more intense then using the elliptical. Two ways to burn more calories is to 1. Increase the time of your exercise, or 2. Increase the intensity. Increasing intensity above 50% VO2 max will increase fat oxidation as well as total energy expenditure. You did say you increased the time while using the elliptical though probably not long enough to keep up with the running you were doing.

Pulling this straight out of my exercise physiology book and lecture last week, Exercise at 50% of VO2 max for 60-100 minutes to maximize fat oxidation. Basically that's saying exercise at an avg heart rate of 130ish bpm for that amount of time to burn the highest percentage of fat for fuel. Enough bro science, get off your duff and get moving!

Yes this is true but also leads to a common misconception of trainers when they talk about the "fat-burning zone". Now (these are general numbers) if one trains on the treadmill for 30-min at 3mph they are generally considered to be working in the "fat-burning zone", they would burn 120 calories (48 from carbs and 72 from fat, 60%), increase the intensity to 5mph and one would burn 224 calories (123 carbs and 101 fat, 45%), increase the intensity to 7mph they would burn 350 calories (245 carbs and 105 fat, 30%). Fat burning as a percentage would be lower, though fat oxidation as well as total calories burned would be higher.
 
Last edited:

KangarooNokona

Kangabilly
The reason you notice the bigger difference is because running is more intense then using the elliptical. Two ways to burn more calories is to 1. Increase the time of your exercise, or 2. Increase the intensity. Increasing intensity above 50% VO2 max will increase fat oxidation as well as total energy expenditure. You did say you increased the time while using the elliptical though probably not long enough to keep up.

yea I just started doing intervals on the elliptical. Start at a level 2 for 2 minutes and jump to a 10-12 for 4 and back down to 2 and so on for 30 minutes. When I start Kristen gethins 12 week trainer again I'm going to implement to stairs, elliptical, and running.
 

Dirt27

Cage Bomb Hero
^^^nice! Switch up the intervals also...level 2 for 30secs, level 3 for 30s, level 4 and so on...work up, go back down. Continue to play with the timing, do one for a week or so (3-4 training sessions) and then switch or vary it everyday, as long as your knees hold up.
 

n.e.mich

Active Member
I did 10.1 miles on my treadmill yesterday, watched the ENTIRE movie Hamburger Hill while running (took me 98 min 30 sec). That wasn't easy!
 

518softball

Addicted to Softballfans
While running you need balance, the longer you run the more tiered your larger muscles get. Once those muscles get tiered you use your core muscles to maintain your balance. The elliptical offers a more steady balance point with a constant motion limiting use of your core muscles.
 

corndiggity

Addicted to Softballfans
While running you need balance, the longer you run the more tiered your larger muscles get. Once those muscles get tiered you use your core muscles to maintain your balance. The elliptical offers a more steady balance point with a constant motion limiting use of your core muscles.

Are you trying to say "tiered" or "tired"?

Regardless, the longer you run the more you look like this.

carlos.10.7.jpg


(Hill) Sprints FTW. **Although a long run from time to time doesn't hurt.
 

corndiggity

Addicted to Softballfans
While running you need balance, the longer you run the more tiered your larger muscles get. Once those muscles get tiered you use your core muscles to maintain your balance. The elliptical offers a more steady balance point with a constant motion limiting use of your core muscles.

Also, I've used both treadmills and elliptical and found with both (like many activities, cycling comes to mind), if I actively engage my core muscles I stay more stable and my movement is far more efficient. A good indicator I often use is how much head movement (up/down particularly) I have.

With cycling specifically, too much head movement can indicate that your force vector is often driving into the ground, which is not the direction you want to be heading.
 

Jigokumimi

Addicted to Softballfans
(Hill) Sprints FTW.
x2.
I have a 100-yard 25% grade near my house. Half-dozen "laps" and I am DONE.
(note: most of these laps are half running up, half walking up, and then quickly walking down. As long as I'm moving forward as fast as I can, I figure that's good enough. It's HARD, man.)
 

bimmerpilot

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I did 10.1 miles on my treadmill yesterday, watched the ENTIRE movie Hamburger Hill while running (took me 98 min 30 sec). That wasn't easy!
It's mental, but for the life of me I cannot get past ~4.5 mi on a treadmill regardless of time of day.

I typically work in two 6 milers per week outdoors. For me, it's all about the bang for the buck, 40 minutes running stationary nets more calorie loss than an hour+ on an elliptical for me.

Back in my soccer life, we did Indian Runs with the front man slaloming between each trailing runner, before practice :eek:
 

WarHorse

Star Player
From a body building perspective:

Elliptical is less impact on the knees and legs, while building stronger ligament muscles in them. You won't lose as much weight on the elliptical than if you were straight up running, but you can endure longer and it doesn't cause joint issues later on. It's great cardio to get blood flowing, middle of the road for weight loss.

Running: Running is much more impactive on the legs and knees and can cause serious knee issues later on in life if extended running. It is, however, great for weight loss and very relaxing after you get the "runners high." It's also much cheaper, since all you need are a good pair of running shoes and not a gym membership or elliptical machine.

For softball training I suggest stationary bike and elliptical for 30 mins post-workout for weight loss, always paired with free weights. Running will get you in shape faster, but it has a heavy price later in life.
 

bradinmemphis

Addicted to Softballfans
I did not take the time to read every single response, but I scanned through quickly.

I have lost 106 lbs in the past year and in that time have read and researched so many things about weight loss that I think my head will explode one day with all the information.

To be honest it really doesn't matter if you do running or elliptical or biking or even walking. The key to weight loss is amount of time worked out and average heart rate. Running of course will probably give you the best result, because it will get your heart rate up the quickest and maintaine it there for a while, but honestly, you could do jumping jacks super fast or jump rope and as long as you get your heart rate up to a certain level then you will achieve calorie burn. The biggest part of losing weight is not how much you burn but the science of eating clean mad keeping your metabolism burning.

Buy a telemetry strap and get your heart rate up to 140 and maintain it.
 

Dirt27

Cage Bomb Hero
I did not take the time to read every single response, but I scanned through quickly.

I have lost 106 lbs in the past year and in that time have read and researched so many things about weight loss that I think my head will explode one day with all the information.

To be honest it really doesn't matter if you do running or elliptical or biking or even walking. The key to weight loss is amount of time worked out and average heart rate. Running of course will probably give you the best result, because it will get your heart rate up the quickest and maintaine it there for a while, but honestly, you could do jumping jacks super fast or jump rope and as long as you get your heart rate up to a certain level then you will achieve calorie burn. The biggest part of losing weight is not how much you burn but the science of eating clean mad keeping your metabolism burning.

Buy a telemetry strap and get your heart rate up to 140 and maintain it.

Pretty sure the key to weight loss is having a negative caloric intake, or burning more calories then you consume. There are two ways to burn more calories 1. Increase the time 2. Increase the intensity of your workout. Which is what I think you were saying.
 

mitchy

New Member
I agree. For me, running works the body a lot more than being on the elliptical. I think your core stabilizes you while running vs an elliptical where you have your feet and hands holding on (I also find myself slumping when on the elliptical). Running keeps me held up, and I feel my stomach being 'sucked in' more naturally when I run, which is why you aren't seeing as great of results in your midsection as when you ran. I wasn't sure if there is anything scientific about it either but I always notice a major difference. I googled a bit and this seems pretty helpful to differentiate the workouts - http://www.builtlean.com/2012/04/20/elliptical-vs-treadmill/
Their weight bearing reference is a good explanation.
 

Onefiver

Addicted to Softballfans
I agree. For me, running works the body a lot more than being on the elliptical. I think your core stabilizes you while running vs an elliptical where you have your feet and hands holding on (I also find myself slumping when on the elliptical). Running keeps me held up, and I feel my stomach being 'sucked in' more naturally when I run, which is why you aren't seeing as great of results in your midsection as when you ran. I wasn't sure if there is anything scientific about it either but I always notice a major difference. I googled a bit and this seems pretty helpful to differentiate the workouts - http://www.builtlean.com/2012/04/20/elliptical-vs-treadmill/
Their weight bearing reference is a good explanation.

The stabilization of the core is an important aspect not to be overlooked. Especially given what we continue to learn about the specificity of motor patterns - if your sport requires running, then it's a good idea to do some sort of running in at least one of your training blocks.
 
Last edited:

Dakota Deerwood

Addicted to Softballfans
Ive tried pretty much everything out there, and I get better results running BY FAR. Keeps the fat off better than anything.
 

THE ICON

Addicted to Softballfans
Due to knee surgery I limit myself from running now and stick to a stationary bike, stair master, or elliptical. My question is I noticed a bigger difference in my mid section when I was running than I am on the elliptical even though I'm going for a longer period of time. Any bro science on why or if running is that much more effective? My diet is better now than it was when I did run so kind of wondering wtf is up lol
well if your running outside then the weather comes into play. hotter you lose weight? ellipitical is better on that knee though.
 

ilyk2win

Addicted to Softballfans
I have chronic knee issues that prevent me from using the treadmill now so I started using the eliptical this week.

Any reason my calves are so sore? Am I doing it wrong?

I wish I could run, b/c in the past I've seen much better results form running than any other basic cardio (bike, eliptical, stairs). I am trying intervals on the eliptical to see if that increases the benefit any.
 

akabigdaddy13

RAY,what did you do Ray?
any info on running in place in a pool.... gravity plus resistance against your entire body? swimming in general as well.....
 

Dirt27

Cage Bomb Hero
I have chronic knee issues that prevent me from using the treadmill now so I started using the eliptical this week.

Any reason my calves are so sore? Am I doing it wrong?

I wish I could run, b/c in the past I've seen much better results form running than any other basic cardio (bike, eliptical, stairs). I am trying intervals on the eliptical to see if that increases the benefit any.

Probably pushing more with the balls of your feet (you may run heel to toe). You will have to increase the intensity (up the resistance, up the rpm's) or the time to see the same benefits you would in running.
 

zachd

The Veteran
Pretty sure the key to weight loss is having a negative caloric intake, or burning more calories then you consume. There are two ways to burn more calories 1. Increase the time 2. Increase the intensity of your workout. Which is what I think you were saying.

Hmmm.. not really. The kind of food you eat will greatly determine how much weight you lose. Studies have had people eat 1500 calories of fat, protein, and carbs. The people eating just fat lost the most weight. Protein, less weight. Carbs, people gained weight.

I've monitored my intake with phone apps and losing fat with a calorie deficit is difficult. Losing fat by strictly cutting carbs and sugar is rapid. And everyone I know who I have seen lose dramatic weight/fat has done it with low carb/high protein/higher fat diets.

HIIT is also supposed to burn more fat than just an aerobic workout. The old science said staying at that target heart rate was best for fat burning. The new science says intervals.

Seems like everyone is on board with that although it can be tough.. sprinting especially is not for everyone.

Surprised no mention of stair climber.. I do eliptical, treadmill, bike, and stair climber. The stairs are by far the most difficult after a few mins on medium setting I can barely breath and my hearts about to explode.

I'm not sure how it is on the knees though.. to me it seems like it's easier than treadmill running
 

Dirt27

Cage Bomb Hero
^^^wait a minute...so you mean to tell me I can consume 2000 calories/day and burn 1500 calories/day and I will lose weight? "Losing weight with a calorie deficit is difficult"??? You might want to go back and read that study/those studies... phone apps equates to bb.com studies, they may be good but they are far from exact...PLEASE show me ONE study that says an individual will lose weight when they have a POSITIVE caloric intake. Pretty sure most studies involving High Intensity Interval Training also involve HIGH intakes of CARBS...if I am wrong, please post a few studies... So, by your logic, I can eat 15 Big Macs which are high, EXTREMELY HIGH in FAT (one equates to about 50% of your daily fat intake) and I will lose weight because "everyone you know" has done so???

Please get a clue...
 
Last edited:

Dirt27

Cage Bomb Hero
Hmmm.. not really. The kind of food you eat will greatly determine how much weight you lose. Studies have had people eat 1500 calories of fat, protein, and carbs. The people eating just fat lost the most weight. Protein, less weight. Carbs, people gained weight.

I've monitored my intake with phone apps and losing fat with a calorie deficit is difficult. Losing fat by strictly cutting carbs and sugar is rapid. And everyone I know who I have seen lose dramatic weight/fat has done it with low carb/high protein/higher fat diets.[/B]

HIIT is also supposed to burn more fat than just an aerobic workout. The old science said staying at that target heart rate was best for fat burning. The new science says intervals.

Seems like everyone is on board with that although it can be tough.. sprinting especially is not for everyone.

Surprised no mention of stair climber.. I do eliptical, treadmill, bike, and stair climber. The stairs are by far the most difficult after a few mins on medium setting I can barely breath and my hearts about to explode.

I'm not sure how it is on the knees though.. to me it seems like it's easier than treadmill running

Ok, then I am confused. I had said that the key to weight loss is having a negative caloric intake and you said "not really". It is impossible to lose weight and consume more calories then you burn. Those 1500 calorie diets you are referring to are done in the short term (maybe two weeks). 1500 calories would not be enough to fuel someone for the day especially if they train or are physically active over an extended time period. Yes, diet is the key when it comes to having a caloric deficit, obviously getting ones carbs from an apple is a much better option then getting them from a Snickers. However, an individual can still lose weight on a diet of Big Macs and Snickers bars as long as their daily caloric intake is negative.

People who participate in High Intensity Interval Training need to fuel themselves with carbs. Consuming only proteins and fats will not give them the energy they need to achieve the maximum gains from that type of exercise.

Yes, I agree that the stair master may be better then the treadmill. Again, it all goes back to increasing TIME or INTENSITY. Climbing stairs is more intense then walking, but at some point (certain speed) the treadmill would be more intense and yes, is probably better on the knees then climbing stairs.
 

zachd

The Veteran
Hey, I'm not trying to be difficult, sorry maybe I was not clear.

I didn't say it was impossible I said it was difficult, and to clarify, if you maintain a calorie deficit but you don't change the foods you are eating it will just be a struggle.

This is my subjective opinion though, having tried it. I'm saying from personal experience, if you cut carbs and sugar, and eat protein and fat, you will lose fat significantly faster. When I did ate like this I didn't bother counting calories or worrying about maintaining a deficit.

Big Macs don't count as 'high fat'. I don't think anyone should eat big macs really. My diet usually consisted of eggs, cheese, sour cream, bacon, turkey, guac. I'd imagine the omeletes I made were 2000 calories but I never tried to add it up. Fat is a good source of energy and if you do cut carbs you do need the energy to be made up with something else.

I tried this from reading through 4 hour body and alpha male diet although what I did was more like an atkins diet (which I've never actually read). It was kind of bits and pieces of these, but the common thread being carbs are bad, sugar is bad.

I'm sure people can find success with different ways but I've tried a lot of different things and this worked better than anything else.
 
Top