Fold Up Bike or just Walk

MFD7576

Hey guys,

Quick question. My girlfriend and I are lookin at buy this: http://www.amazon.com/Stowabike-Compact-Folding-Shimano-Bicycle/dp/B006JCUPVM

We like to go for walks around the neighborhood but I was wondering, what would be more physical activity? Plain walking or using an urban bike for regular streets? (Fold up because of apartment living)

DavPul

So the question is that you're wondering if riding a bike is an easier method of transport than walking?

MFD7576

No if riding a fold up bike is an efficient way to burn calories via basic exercise or if walking would just be better in general.

bringon30

Riding a bicycle gets my heart rate up better than walking. Both will be good for your health, though. Moving is what matters! That, and staying in a calorie deficit.

inimical909

I just bought a bike and it ha changes everything. The bike makes excercise fun and it's much more rigorous. I do Hal an hour on the bike and it goes by so fast and I burn 399 calories. It's a fun way to excercise, beat invesent I have made In years. So a lot of research and make sure the bike fits your size. Oh. And buy a seat cushion lol

DR2501

Cycling isn't great exercise unless you do big miles. Its too efficient to be great exercise over short journeys. So if you think the miles make it worthwhile (10+ IMO) get the bike, if not, walk.

AsISmile

DR2501 wrote: »

Cycling isn't great exercise unless you do big miles. Its too efficient to be great exercise over short journeys. So if you think the miles make it worthwhile (10+ IMO) get the bike, if not, walk.

I don't totally agree on this. A 15 minute bike ride can get me pretty sweaty and out of breath. As long as you push yourself.
That being said, a foldable bike is a commuter bike. I would not think it is too great for exercise. Yes, the smaller tires do force you to paddle more, but they aren't designed for long bike rides. Furthermore, they probably aren't very ergonomical.

Personally I would not invest in a foldable bike for exercise. They work to cycle to work from the train station, but exercise. Nope.

DavPul

Sweaty and out of breath =/= calories burned

KarenJanine

Both can be good forms of exercise. Cycling allows you to go greater disctances so you get to see more of the countryside, walking is better for holding conversations.

If you want to take up cycling then go ahead but I would not recommend a folding bike for leisure riding - a road bike (if riding on the road) or a trekking bike (for town/trail riding) would be better.

queenliz99

Why not do both?

HillOE

Another in the It Depends camp. bikes will take you farther faster and if you have that wander lust tendency, a bike is a great option to cover more ground in less time. It's a great transport option too, when it's not just exercise you want to do. I've gone on century rides with people who use fold up bikes, granted they are v. good cyclists to begin with, but you can go far and fast on one. They are heavy, so take that into consideration, don't think you'll just carry it around with you, it's designed to be ridden and then locked up at the destination. The lighter they are the more expensive, so be prepared for a heavy bike for $170.

Yes it's a good exercise, I think the question is how fast would you be walking and how fast would you be biking? Meanderthaling around isn't going to do anything for you, walking at a sub 15 min mile will. Biking around the block 1x at 7 miles an hour isn't going to do anything for you, riding for an hour at > 12 miles an hour on a regular basis will.

We just bought a Citizen Bike for our son, for storage and transport to grandma/pa vs his regular bike which is too big to fit in grandma's car. His comment is that it has more options for adjustment and the wheels are a bit tricky to get used to (smaller wheels and turning are a bit different than on a standard bike). For a kid who hates to bike, it was a big success. We're hoping that he likes it enough that it will be a good bike option for him when we ride as a family...He's also between sizes (kid to adult) and we wanted something that would grow with him or at least have potential for more than a year or 2 before it too was out grown.

AsISmile

DavPul wrote: »

Sweaty and out of breath =/= calories burned

True, but that's why I added the thing about pushing yourself. You don't have to cycle for miles and miles, you can cycle shorter distances at higher intensity.

coreyreichle

MFD7576 wrote: »

No if riding a fold up bike is an efficient way to burn calories via basic exercise or if walking would just be better in general.

Well, given the 20" wheels, it'll be one of the most non-efficient bikes one could buy.

But, bicycling is a highly efficient mode of getting around, so, walking would be more of a calories burner (Per mile). However, time-wise, cycling is more efficient (ie, in 1 hour you go 20 miles by bike, and burn ~1000 calories. In 1 hour, you walk 4.5 miles, and burn about 600 calories).

I would not ride for very long on it, however. Folders are made for quick trips, under 5 miles or such. Since you're in an apartment, there are many solutions for a full-sized non-folder storage, made just for apartment dwellers.

In NYC, most everyone has a bike hanging on their wall, or stowed on a bike tree: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=apartment+storage+for+bicycles&qpvt=apartment+storage+for+bicycles&qpvt=apartment+storage+for+bicycles&FORM=IGRE

MeanderingMammal

MFD7576 wrote: »

Hey guys,

Quick question. My girlfriend and I are lookin at buy this: http://www.amazon.com/Stowabike-Compact-Folding-Shimano-Bicycle/dp/B006JCUPVM

We like to go for walks around the neighborhood but I was wondering, what would be more physical activity? Plain walking or using an urban bike for regular streets? (Fold up because of apartment living)

Personally I wouldn't buy that particular bike, but recognising your restriction on space some form of folder might work.

Things to look for with a folder would be what size it actually folds down to, and what the form factor is like. They'll also tend to be a bit heavier, as aluminium or carbon frames would end up very bulky.

If you have the budget, a Brompton would be the way to go. Good for sustained 15-16mph, comfortable for a couple of hours in the saddle. the on you link to looks quite flexible, so you'll lose a lot of power, and it has big fat tyres, which are inefficient. I'd suggest that the middle fold means that it's quite bulky and you may find that a couple of full size hybrids will do the trick.

Wheel size isn't a big deal in efficiency.

MeanderingMammal

coreyreichle wrote: »

But, bicycling is a highly efficient mode of getting around, so, walking would be more of a calories burner (Per mile). However, time-wise, cycling is more efficient (ie, in 1 hour you go 20 miles by bike, and burn ~1000 calories. In 1 hour, you walk 4.5 miles, and burn about 600 calories).

Calorie expenditure depends on lots of different factors, and it's not the only dimension that one would consider in fitness. For me, at 160lbs, I'll generally burn about 100 cals per mile running, perhaps 50 cals per mile walking. On a bike it would depend very much on what type of bike, what type of terrain and how fast I'm riding. On a road bike on a fast training ride then I'm probably in the realms of being comparable to running expenditure; 1 hr running would give me about the same expenditure as 1 hour of riding. On my Brompton, an hour of riding is probably somewhere between an hour of walking cf an hour of running.