Talk:Elliptical trainer

Motor fitness

Not holding onto the handles - The stationary handles or the ones that move? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.93.246 (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the claim that "professional" models do not require/provide an adjustable incline. The ones at my gym certainly do. FreplySpang (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice edit(s) and I agree with your comment, they are pretty nice machines at my gym and they have adjustable inclines. In fact I thought changing the incline was one of the advantages... it's more like walking at low inclines, more like running at higher inclines. At least that's what the trainer said! --W.marsh 04:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The final sentence in this article is confusing, or at least had me reading it a couple of times trying to figure out what it was attempting to say. --- "Although interesting for people with recent injuries, the smoother movements cause a lower impact in improving bone density (loss of calcium)." --- What is trying to be said? ... Elliptical trainers, with its lower impact, do not help improve bone density as much as treadmills do? 04:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the claim that elliptical trainers don't improve bone mass. I've seen multiple sites that contradict this. It is still weight bearing even though it is low-impact.

I'm college educated in mechanical engineering and I agree with the above anonymous critic. The fact is that an elliptical's arm and leg motions produce low level accelerations and decelerations, which are physiologically comparable to impacts. Cyclical changes in the velocity vectors of motions must produce cyclical loading of bones. An impact is a dynamic load and an elliptical's loading on the skeleton is also dynamic. However, its loading is not as great, nor occuring as briefly, nor generally as high in frequency as in running on a treadmill. Currently though there is no reason to presume that an elliptical can produce no benefits for bone health. So I have snipped out the conjecture and saved it here until someone can cite a study with evidence to support it: "...the smoother movements do not help to improve bone density (loss of calcium)."--Zymatik 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As a kinesiologist I feel the need to both support Zymatik's position and provide important corrections. Your statement that "low level accelerations and decelerations are physiologically comparable to impacts" is false. Impulse is only one factor here. A low force applied for a long duration is NOT *physiologically* equivalent to a strong force for a short duration. Notably, different receptors are stimulated, both because of the high impact (peak force) and because of the vibration. I also hypothesize that muscular co-contraction may occur, specifically in response to high impacts. With that said, bone density is positively affected by both muscular tension and moderate impacts. While it may be argued that elliptical trainers offer less stimulation for bone density than treadmills (citation required), it is certain that elliptical trainers offer more stimulation than doing nothing, and do help to *preserve* bone density. However, the removed sentence mentions that it does not *improve* bone density. At the time of writing, I am not aware if this has been proven or not. I support the removal of the unsourced sentence. Patrick Roy-V., B.Sc. Kin. 76.10.139.241 (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the claim that the "elliptically" shaped path the feet follow is a misnomer. Clearly they do follow an elliptical path, either circular or non-circular but still mathematically elliptical. Further, if this was truly a misnomer, a citation for such a fact should have been provided. Ahugenerd (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This machine is the devil

I just used one of these for the first time. It was sent to Earth, by the Devil to tormet man in Gods glorious kingdom. Be gone devil bike! I condemn thee! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.124.247.200 (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is true, and we can get a quote from a notable source, I propose adding it to the article. It's obviously of interest to the reading public if these machines are the works of Hellsmiths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.187.191 (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Said source should also provide an adequate definition of "tormet", I don't believe I'm familiar with that particular term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.66.144.98 (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Transfer to running

I'd be curious to see how is exercise on an elliptical trainer transferred to running. IIRC, transfer from cycling to running is fairly low, 60% perhaps. I'd guess that transfer is somewhat higher in this case. GregorB (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Elliptical machine buying guide

[SPAM REMOVED MER-C 18:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.110.71.46 (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia policies appear to disallow websites such as that. See, for example, WP:ELNO #5 and #14, and WP:NOT #5. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)