walking vs cycling

TerryJackson61

I have been experimenting and it seems eway more calories are burned for the same distance by walking as opposed to biking. Not sure which is better cardiovascularly though. What is the general consensus on walking or running?

vadimknobel

Distance wise cycling is more efficient (lwss calories burned per mile). However time wise jogging and cycling burns about the same amount of calories for me (700-900/hr) depending on speed. And I can cycle longer (3+ hrs) at a time than jog (about 1 hr). However my butt gets sore on long rides even with a soft seat and cycling shorts, so it's a tradeoff.

vadimknobel

*less

wabmester

Do both. You'll work muscles a bit differently, and you'll get less bored. In terms of cardiovascular effects, it depends on intensity and time.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

DavPul

TerryJackson61 wrote: »

I have been experimenting and it seems eway more calories are burned for the same distance by walking as opposed to biking. Not sure which is better cardiovascularly though. What is the general consensus on walking or running?

you're overthinking this. and, strangely enough, you're simultaneously underthinking this.

unless you bike really really really slowly, you should compare different methods of cardio by time performed, not distance traveled.

3dogsrunning

So, how long does it take you to bike a mile vs walking it?

TerryJackson61

3dogsrunning wrote: »

So, how long does it take you to bike a mile vs walking it?

Well I bike d 7.62 miles in 46 min and waked 4 miles in 67 min on roughly the same route just cut it a little shorter walking.

TerryJackson61

DavPul wrote: »

TerryJackson61 wrote: »

I have been experimenting and it seems eway more calories are burned for the same distance by walking as opposed to biking. Not sure which is better cardiovascularly though. What is the general consensus on walking or running?

you're overthinking this. and, strangely enough, you're simultaneously underthinking this.

unless you bike really really really slowly, you should compare different methods of cardio by time performed, not distance traveled.

Oh okay that makes sense but if I take the calories burned by both results and divide by their respective times the results are a lot closer. Thanks for the in

TerryJackson61

TerryJackson61 wrote: »

DavPul wrote: »

TerryJackson61 wrote: »

I have been experimenting and it seems eway more calories are burned for the same distance by walking as opposed to biking. Not sure which is better cardiovascularly though. What is the general consensus on walking or running?

you're overthinking this. and, strangely enough, you're simultaneously underthinking this.

unless you bike really really really slowly, you should compare different methods of cardio by time performed, not distance traveled.

Oh okay that makes sense but if I take the calories burned by both results and divide by their respective times the results are a lot closer. Thanks for the info

TerryJackson61

Info ( sorry enter by mistake )

bwogilvie

First, to answer the original question: cycling burns about 20-30% of the calories that walking burns, per unit distance. It's one of the most efficient means of locomotion ever invented.

However, per unit time, cycling burns more calories.

Look at it this way: I, a 47-year-old, 150-pound man, can walk comfortably at 3 mph. So in one hour, I can cover 3 miles and burn about 240 calories.

On flat terrain, I can bicycle 12 miles per hour easily, with my heart rate about the same as when I'm walking 3 mph (around 90 beats per minute). In that hour, I will burn about 250-300 calories depending on the wind. So per mile, I'm burning fewer calories, but per hour, I'm burning slightly more.

But here's the thing: If I put the pedal to the metal (so to speak), I can go 18 mph or faster on flat ground. At 18 mph, I'll burn around 500-550 calories in the same amount of time, over twice as many as walking. Of course my heart rate will be higher, around 140 beats per minute. If there are hills involved, my speed will drop but my heart rate will go up to the 150-160 range and I'll burn more like 550-650 calories an hour, depending on how many hills and how hard I ride up them.

And if I run, I burn 800-850 calories an hour at 7.5-8 miles per hour.

So if you want to go X distance and burn the most calories, running is best, followed by walking, and then cycling. But if you want to go X minutes and don't mind sweating, running will burn the most calories, followed by cycling, with walking bringing up the rear.

Then, a comment:

vadimknobel wrote: »

However my butt gets sore on long rides even with a soft seat and cycling shorts, so it's a tradeoff.

That's because your seat is too soft. It may seem counterintuitive, but you want the hardest saddle (seat) your butt can tolerate. On a bike saddle, your weight is borne by your sit bones (ischial tuberosities, if you want the technical term). A hard saddle means that you compress only the flesh immediately below them, which, after a few painful days, toughens up. But a soft saddle means that they sink in, which puts more pressure on skin and flesh that is not directly below them. That can pinch nerves and reduce blood flow in general.

Machka9

bwogilvie wrote: »

vadimknobel wrote: »

However my butt gets sore on long rides even with a soft seat and cycling shorts, so it's a tradeoff.

That's because your seat is too soft. It may seem counterintuitive, but you want the hardest saddle (seat) your butt can tolerate. On a bike saddle, your weight is borne by your sit bones (ischial tuberosities, if you want the technical term). A hard saddle means that you compress only the flesh immediately below them, which, after a few painful days, toughens up. But a soft saddle means that they sink in, which puts more pressure on skin and flesh that is not directly below them. That can pinch nerves and reduce blood flow in general.

Yes.

The first thing to prevent butt soreness is to set the bicycle up correctly.

Then get a saddle that is wide enough, but not too wide. You may need to experiment with flat saddles and saddles that curve up in the back. You may need to experiment with the angle of the saddle ... install it flat, but you might need to tip the nose up a tiny bit, and you may be more comfortable if the saddle points slightly left or right rather than dead centre.

And a hard saddle, like a Brooks B17, is a good choice.

There are more things a person can do to prevent soreness on long rides, but start with that.

BasicGreatGuy

wabmester wrote: »

Do both. You'll work muscles a bit differently, and you'll get less bored. In terms of cardiovascular effects, it depends on intensity and time.

Spot on reply.