Spinning or running.

Options
santandr77
santandr77 Posts: 38 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
What burns and tones quicker??? Spinning or running???

Replies

  • fbref9
    fbref9 Posts: 74 Member
    Options
    I am not a runner although I do my best to run as part of my fitness plan. However, I started spinning last year after being challenged by my sister-in-law... and now I am hooked. Spinning does not recreate the outside terrain; however, you can adjust your resistance to mimic climbs and do full out sprints. The instructors I have taken classes with will mix it up so you never know what to expect when you get into class. Also spinning is lower impact on your legs which is a plus... at least in my book.

    Also I found that spinning provided a bigger burn... based on the burn recorded by my Fitbit Blaze. I know it is not perfect but all things being equal, 45-60 min of spin burned more than running 30-40 minutes... then again I can't run 60 minutes nonstop.
  • jessicapk
    jessicapk Posts: 574 Member
    Options
    Whichever one you enjoy the most and will continue to do long term.
  • SueInAz
    SueInAz Posts: 6,592 Member
    Options
    If you're talking mile for mile, it's running because it takes more work to run a mile than to cycle it. If you're talking time, however, much of that will depend on the level of effort. A person running at 5 mph will burn less calories per hour than a person running at 9 mph. The same for cycling and effort.

    All of that said, the best exercise is the one that you enjoy and will keep on doing. I couldn't imagine dragging myself out the door at dawn to run 6 miles if I hated it.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    In reality running burns more calories than cycling because for 99.9999 % of people running is done at a higher intensity than cycling. Riding a bike can burn more calories but the fact that you're sitting down and have the ability to coast means people by and large don't.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    jessicapk wrote: »
    Whichever one you enjoy the most and will continue to do long term.

    This.

    I prefer running, because I don't really like biking indoors (or running indoors, for that matter), but spinning can be fun and was part of how I got into quite good biking shape for a hilly trip last winter, so I don't knock it.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    Options
    Do both for fun!
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    Why not do both? I used to enjoy using the indoor bike, but it started bothering my knees (I tried a recumbent one, it made no difference). Oddly enough, they seem to do well with running.

    I agree with doing whatever you find most enjoyable. The most effective exercise is the one you're going to stick with and do.
  • scorpio516
    scorpio516 Posts: 955 Member
    Options
    Both could burn the same.

    Biggest difference, as a bonus running is good for bone density, which is good against oestoporosis. Biking doesn't
  • ariela569
    ariela569 Posts: 22 Member
    Options
    Run outdoors, You are getting a workout for the mind, body and soul!
    Good luck
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Options
    santandr77 wrote: »
    What burns and tones quicker??? Spinning or running???

    They each have their own benefits, it's not a competition over calorie expenditure.

    Personally I do both, at the moment Ultrarunning with cycling as cross-training
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    For me Spinning burns far more calories as I'm a cyclist not a runner. I don't do Spinning classes but do use indoor bikes for training and can hit 800 cals/hour - personally I couldn't come anywhere near that running as I couldn't run an hour at c. 8mph.

    "Tones" - depends what you mean by tones.
    Fat loss comes from calorie deficit over time and not specific exercise.
    If you mean muscle building then clearly neither is optimal.
    If you mean CV fitness then either.

    IMHO it's a bit of a mistake to choose exercise based on calorie burns - fitness goals or just enjoyment are likely to be far more sustainable.
  • ClareMillsRoberts
    ClareMillsRoberts Posts: 28 Member
    Options
    I have found spinning to be a really good work out. I loathe running but have got into spinning really quickly, I found my fitness levels and stamina improved really quickly and I get really good calorie burns (judged from my Fitbit Charge HR). The classes I go to are really varied and combine climbs and sprints in different positions (seated/standing) so it feels a lot more interesting than just running at the same pace for 45 minutes. Also, if you are in a class you have the encouragement of the instructor to keep going where you might have otherwise stopped.
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    edited October 2016
    Options
    These are two different things.. Why not try them both and decide which one you like best, which one you will do consistently as part of your exercise regime.. If you like both, do both..

    Tone? neither really.. this takes something else like resistance/strength training..

    I hope you have fitness goals way above and beyond just burning calories.. Do something fun and something you will enjoy doing..
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    scorpio516 wrote: »
    Both could burn the same.

    Biggest difference, as a bonus running is good for bone density, which is good against oestoporosis. Biking doesn't

    They don't.......running burns a fairly constant number of calories for every mile run whereas cycling is very much dependent on speed / intensity. Cycling at a leisurely 10mph burns about 1/4 of the calories per mile (but you can ride a lot more miles which can offset much of the difference)

    OP why not both (assuming you enjoy both)? Running and cycling compliment each other (cycling is more quads & running hamstrings)
  • DM01234
    DM01234 Posts: 317 Member
    Options
    All that can be said, I think has. With the addition of indoor rowing, all three make up the forms of cardio I do. I'm not sure any of these will do as much for you in terms of "tone" as much as true resistance training will.

    I say do all of them if you think you will enjoy them. No point of restricting yourself.
  • Leadfoot_Lewis
    Leadfoot_Lewis Posts: 1,623 Member
    Options
    scorpio516 wrote: »
    Biggest difference, as a bonus running is good for bone density, which is good against osteoporosis. Biking doesn't

    Bone density is improved by giving the bones a reason to get stronger. For example weight training hands down is best for this. When you're training a muscle it's pulling on the bone and the bone's reaction to this is to get stronger.

    I fail to see how running does this and biking does not???

    Anyway...as far as which is best for calorie burn, I believe it's all about intensity. Worry about that and not which exercise is the best for this or that.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    @Leadfoot_Lewis

    Running improves bone density because of the constant impact. Road cycling harms bone density, probably because cyclists sweat so much (mineral loss) combined with the low impact nature of our sport. Road cyclists are in a worse position than couch potatoes when it comes to bone mineral density. Mountain bikers are better off than road cyclists for BMD.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18191053
    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/is-bicycling-bad-for-your-bones/comment-page-12/?_r=0
    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/16/health/he-cycling16
    http://www.activebody.org/Womens_group_PDF/Bone_Health_in_Cyclists.pdf
    https://breakingmuscle.com/cycling/cycling-might-be-bad-for-bone-health
  • Leadfoot_Lewis
    Leadfoot_Lewis Posts: 1,623 Member
    Options
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    @Leadfoot_Lewis

    Running improves bone density because of the constant impact. Road cycling harms bone density, probably because cyclists sweat so much (mineral loss) combined with the low impact nature of our sport. Road cyclists are in a worse position than couch potatoes when it comes to bone mineral density. Mountain bikers are better off than road cyclists for BMD.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18191053
    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/is-bicycling-bad-for-your-bones/comment-page-12/?_r=0
    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/16/health/he-cycling16
    http://www.activebody.org/Womens_group_PDF/Bone_Health_in_Cyclists.pdf
    https://breakingmuscle.com/cycling/cycling-might-be-bad-for-bone-health

    Interesting...thank you for the explanation.

Categories