biking v/w walking

Options
borichfan1
borichfan1 Posts: 9 Member
edited May 2018 in Fitness and Exercise
MFP says you burn twice as many calories biking for 60 minutes as you do walking for 60 minutes. How is that when you are sitting on a bike pedaling v/s walking?

Replies

  • borichfan1
    borichfan1 Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    No i have not tried cycling. I used to have a regular bicycle i used to ride around the neighborhood tho.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    Options
    At it most basic, the work done cycling is usually going to be greater than that for walking. But more tangibly...

    For most people, walking isn't very strenuous. Can it be? Sure. But it isn't by default, for the average person.
    Cycling is the opposite... more strenuous more of the time. Is it always? No. But it is by default.
  • concordancia
    concordancia Posts: 5,320 Member
    Options
    I can definitely get my heart beat higher on my bike than even speed walking. And that is a little 3 gear folding bike. Imagine what I could do on something actually meant for exercise, rather than transportation.
  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,464 Member
    Options
    Cycling is hard!
  • knotgood77
    knotgood77 Posts: 69 Member
    Options
    It depends on your approach to cycling. If you are just counting time spent on a bicycle, basic transportation pedaling sometimes etc. probably not. If you are maintaining a continuous output, conscience of cadence, average speed, and so on it is a vastly different energy expenditure.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    It's largely a function of the fact that even a relatively slow cyclist can cover a lot more distance in an hour than someone walking can.

    To give you an example at my weight I burn about 60 cal per mile walked vs about 27 cal for every mile cycled (I'm pretty confident in that number as I use power meter) but I can cover 10 miles on my bike at a relatively leisurely pace or close to 20 if I push it a bit but 4 miles walking would be quite brisk.

    If you do the math 4 x 60 is 240 cal and 20 x 27 is 540 (or 270 if cycling at a slower pace)

    Keep in mind that MFPs calories estimations aren't terribly reliable either.

  • gearhead426hemi
    gearhead426hemi Posts: 919 Member
    Options
    It takes more energy to keep the bike moving especially when climbs are involved. When you are walking up a hill it takes minimal effort to keep your feet moving. When you are on a bike now you have to stand and pedal which engages your core, arms, shoulders and back. Biking is a lot easier on your joints so I definitely recommend getting a bike. I would also suggest using a heart rate monitor or power meter to get the most accurate reading.
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,521 Member
    Options
    @OldAssDude hit it on the head. Totally depends on speed for both activities. (And actually on your body weight and whether you do any hills.)

    Also, I think it's more accurate to carry your phone and let an app calculate the calorie burn in either case.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    borichfan1 wrote: »
    MFP says you burn twice as many calories biking for 60 minutes as you do walking for 60 minutes. How is that when you are sitting on a bike pedaling v/s walking?

    Depends on the effort. I probably don't burn that many more calories biking with my 8 year old because I'm not putting in much effort and just tooling around.

    When I go on an actual road ride I'm putting in much greater effort and on a flat I can be going 20 MPH and pedal pretty much constantly throughout the ride with a HR around 145-150. When I go walk my dog, my HR is around 100 - 110 depending...it takes very little effort.

Categories