Quote:
Originally Posted by Gemme
My rant was aimed at treadmills primarily but yes, the ellipticals lose their magical special powers if all the parts don't work right. Hey! Maybe that's a reason that the stats are up to 42% off on ellipticals! If folks aren't using the arms of the machine, they are just giving up a ton of burnt calories.
No workout today. The workday was tedious and long and I developed a low grade headache mid-day. I thought it was dehydration at first...and I'm sure that played into it....but flushing my gut has done nothing for it. Boo.
|
Okay, I got the rant wrong, but now I'm thinking.
Now you've done it.
I know for a fact that when I added my poles to my sand walk I started burning 30% more calories with just that one change. How do I know this?
I treated it as a single variable trial. I had been doing the exact same routine, same diet, location, distance, time of day, you name it. I made just that one change and watched the scale. I had been stable for months and it started dropping quickly. I started adding calories until I hit a point where I would slowly gain. Then I dropped back down a smidge, and got back to where I would maintain an even weight over time. Walaa! Eating 30% more food.
This has held true for two years.
Now I want to know if the elliptical manufacturers have accounted for this in the algorithms used between the two different styles; with and without the arms. All a person would really have to do is the same routine on the two different styles of machines and check the readouts. Everyone is different, but there should be a pretty good discrepancy between the two. While the readout would very likely be inaccurate as a total, the difference should show up clearly.
Gemme?? Jennifer?? Who wants to be our lil tester?
Blame Gemme, it was her idea...
