I just did 30 mins on the cross trainer, 5k and burned an amazing....

[MrsMingech]

...58 calories.

I realise the 5k doesn't mean much given that I'd didn't run it.

But 30 mins of sweating, puffing, hurting and I burned an effing 58 calories?!

FIFTY EIGHT 😭😭😭😭

Was it the machine that said that or a fitness watch? You burned more than that, I promise!

According to what? The calorie estimates on cross trainers are very unreliable, you might have put your weight in at 12kg and your age at 88 or something.

Or were you just going really really slowly with zero resistance?!

Just about a biscuit's worth. But not a fabulous biscuit. Just an ordinary one.

However, I'm impressed with your efforts.

So my half hour walk would use up about 10 calories then!

that's wrong; you'd have burned far more than that!

Tbh I have the opposite. My watch tells me about 350 / 400 for that. Watches usually overestimate by up to 50%.

That is so gutting! Don't be disheartened though - it is better than nothing and will improve your fitness :)

I guess that is why they say you can't exercise out of a bad diet (which, quite frankly, sucks).

Those calorie burner counter things aren’t accurate.

But @MrsMingech exercise doesn't make you lose weight !
Eating less makes you lose weight.
Never heard the expression "you can't outrun a poor diet" ?
Or
"Weight is lost in the kitchen not the gym"?
(Lift weights, you'll build muscle which burns more calories while you're resting than fat does)

according to what?
even walking half an hour should have you between 150-200ckal

unless you are actually thumbelina?

That doesn't sound right.

It doesn’t sound accurate.

But aside from that, we’re you going at a steady pace throughout? Or doing intervals? The latter burns more calories and is more interesting and enjoyable (IMO) than doing steady state cardio.

Also second the poster who recommends lifting.

*were

@ShirleyPhallus

According to what? The calorie estimates on cross trainers are very unreliable, you might have put your weight in at 12kg and your age at 88 or something.

Or were you just going really really slowly with zero resistance?!

Maybe I was going really slowly? I'm very unfit!

I was blowing out my arse that's for sure! It wasn't zero resistance, thank you! It was 1.
I tried to turn it down to zero when I died half way through but there's no zero for it to be turned down to.

I can't put my weight in.

All I could get from it was I did 30 mins, 5k distance and my heart rate went up to 130.

In contrast I’ve just jun 5k outside in the fucking wind and hail and my Fitbit says 430 calories.

Calorie burns on activity trackers are NEVER accurate. Don't listen to them . You've burned way more than that ! Don't let it put you off .

@DameCelia

But *@MrsMingech* exercise doesn't make you lose weight ! Eating less makes you lose weight. Never heard the expression "you can't outrun a poor diet" ? Or "Weight is lost in the kitchen not the gym"? (Lift weights, you'll build muscle which burns more calories while you're resting than fat does)

I can't lift weight because I piss my pants.

I can't run because I piss my pants.

I got a cross trainer to prevent the pant pissing.

If you covered 5k in 30 minutes you couldn’t have been going that slowly. When I run 5k at that pace, my Fitbit reckons I burn about 300 calories. I’m not sure I believe that either but 58 calories seems very low.

I don’t pay any attention to exercise calories burned. I focus on the health and fitness benefits instead.

This is why i breastfed for so long. Much better calorie burn than running

That's not right. An average adult burns 100 calories walking a mile, so 5k is 3 miles so you should have burned around 300 calories, or more if you run or there are hills (or wind @Marmite27 ) involved.

Have you told the machine you weigh about 2.5 stone or something?

58 calories is not correct
What was recording it?

Just about a biscuit's worth. But not a fabulous biscuit. Just an ordinary one.

This made me laugh!

Sorry I thought I had mentioned, it was my machine that told me the info.

(Personal trainer here)

That doesn't sound right. Those machines are notoriously inaccurate. Is this a x-trainer you've got at home or a gym one? Do you know what make it is?

At that effort level without knowing your age or weight and I'm not asking for those so don't tell me I'd (roughly, very roughly) estimate that you burned about 150 to 170 cals.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. You got on the bloody thing and got yourself out of breath for half an hour, which is the point of getting on it in the first place. You're not in competition with anyone else, so at one level it doesn't matter what times or distances anyone else does.

The knack is to get back on it in a couple of days' time and see if you can beat your own previous time/distance/effort. Even if only by a smidge.

Resistance 1?! What does it go up to?
On the machines I use at the gym I use level 14, dh uses 16 and does 10k in an hour( think it says something like 430 kcal burned? Mind you he’s heavy. I don’t know what it goes up to but 1 would have made my legs go as fast as Roadrunner faster probably!! With not much resistance you’re not going to be burning much but I’d still be surprised if it wasn’t a bit more than what you were shown.

@TheChosenTwo

Resistance 1?! What does it go up to? On the machines I use at the gym I use level 14, dh uses 16 and does 10k in an hour( think it says something like 430 kcal burned? Mind you he’s heavy. I don’t know what it goes up to but 1 would have made my legs go as fast as Roadrunner faster probably!! With not much resistance you’re not going to be burning much but I’d still be surprised if it wasn’t a bit more than what you were shown.

It goes up to 5.