Spinning or running.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Run outdoors, You are getting a workout for the mind, body and soul!
Good luck

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.

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..

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

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