Walking vs Cycling
Discussion
Right I have decided that my 21st weight is unnaceptable and I have taken the descion to leave the car at home and either walk or cycle to work. I have walked and cycled a few times (8 mile a day) and im not sure which is more benificial to me so I am looking for some advice
Well what burns more calories, Walk or Cycle???
Well what burns more calories, Walk or Cycle???
TRUENOSAM said:
Right I have decided that my 21st weight is unnaceptable and I have taken the descion to leave the car at home and either walk or cycle to work. I have walked and cycled a few times (8 mile a day) and im not sure which is more benificial to me so I am looking for some advice
Well what burns more calories, Walk or Cycle???
Walking burns fat quicker as cycling raises your heart-rate too much for it to burn fat deposits within your body.Well what burns more calories, Walk or Cycle???
Start with walking and once you shed 2-3 stone, switch to cycling and mix the two.
I would consider it in more detail based upon your physical condition. If you're grossly overweight you may wish to think about the stresses placed upon knee, hip and ankle joints when running, particularly if your route is hard surfaced. Choice of training shoe will also be hugely important. Cycling may be the better option until weight has reduced. You've obviously made the first but most difficult step so good luck!
Cycling is a far more efficient means of transport than walking. Therefore if you want to burn more calories, walking is by far the best method of doing so between the two over the same distance. Over 8 miles there are going to be several downhill (even very shallow) sections. This will allow you to be moving without expending any (or little) energy whilst on a bike. Not so on foot.
I cover a lot mroe distance than I would on foot and am hauling 2-15kgs more weight and usualy putting in more effort.
RobDickinson said:
I cover a lot mroe distance than I would on foot and am hauling 2-15kgs more weight and usualy putting in more effort.
But which is more fun is more important, excercise has to be fun or at least tollerable..
The OP specified he had an 8 mile journey to work, so there would be no extra distance covered by bike.But which is more fun is more important, excercise has to be fun or at least tollerable..
Fat burning is best at a mid exercise heartrate (say 140-150 bpm) for a longer period of time i.e. >40 minutes.
4 miles each way on a bike will get you the right heartrate, but you're only sustaining it for about 20 minutes. It'll still do you good, but you'll only burn some of your breakfast off.
4 mile walk each way at a brisk pace will take you an hour and provided you're walking briskly so that you're breathing heavily but still capable of holding a conversation, you'll have your heartrate up about the same level. That will burn fat well. The problem with a normal walking pace is that your heartrate will only be about 120 bpm and while you'll get a bit fitter, you won't see results particularly quickly.
Best bit is a combination of both, and you'll need to drop your portion sizes a bit, cut out any snack carbohydrates like crisps or biscuits and look at your alcohol intake. Exercise alone will not lose the surplus weight.
4 miles each way on a bike will get you the right heartrate, but you're only sustaining it for about 20 minutes. It'll still do you good, but you'll only burn some of your breakfast off.
4 mile walk each way at a brisk pace will take you an hour and provided you're walking briskly so that you're breathing heavily but still capable of holding a conversation, you'll have your heartrate up about the same level. That will burn fat well. The problem with a normal walking pace is that your heartrate will only be about 120 bpm and while you'll get a bit fitter, you won't see results particularly quickly.
Best bit is a combination of both, and you'll need to drop your portion sizes a bit, cut out any snack carbohydrates like crisps or biscuits and look at your alcohol intake. Exercise alone will not lose the surplus weight.
alfa pint said:
Fat burning is best at a mid exercise heartrate (say 140-150 bpm) for a longer period of time i.e. >40 minutes.
4 miles each way on a bike will get you the right heartrate, but you're only sustaining it for about 20 minutes. It'll still do you good, but you'll only burn some of your breakfast off.
4 mile walk each way at a brisk pace will take you an hour and provided you're walking briskly so that you're breathing heavily but still capable of holding a conversation, you'll have your heartrate up about the same level. That will burn fat well. The problem with a normal walking pace is that your heartrate will only be about 120 bpm and while you'll get a bit fitter, you won't see results particularly quickly.
Best bit is a combination of both, and you'll need to drop your portion sizes a bit, cut out any snack carbohydrates like crisps or biscuits and look at your alcohol intake. Exercise alone will not lose the surplus weight.
The heart rate zone fat burn thing is mostly nonsense in the context of weight loss. It might be correct that there's an optimum heart rate at which a person burns maximal amounts of fat, but it's still a small percentage of the total energy burn. But what's more important is that all the glycogen that you burn alongside any fat burn has to be replaced from somewhere. It's going to come from some combination of the food you eat post-exercise and your fat stores. 4 miles each way on a bike will get you the right heartrate, but you're only sustaining it for about 20 minutes. It'll still do you good, but you'll only burn some of your breakfast off.
4 mile walk each way at a brisk pace will take you an hour and provided you're walking briskly so that you're breathing heavily but still capable of holding a conversation, you'll have your heartrate up about the same level. That will burn fat well. The problem with a normal walking pace is that your heartrate will only be about 120 bpm and while you'll get a bit fitter, you won't see results particularly quickly.
Best bit is a combination of both, and you'll need to drop your portion sizes a bit, cut out any snack carbohydrates like crisps or biscuits and look at your alcohol intake. Exercise alone will not lose the surplus weight.
When you look at the bigger picture this way the important factor is total calorie burn and you should be optimising intensity to allow you to exercise for as long a period as you have time/motivation for.
Any weight loss plan will always come back to Calories In < Calories Out = Weightloss. It's up to you how you make that equation work for you, walking or cycling will both work, but which is best for you would depend on how long you can do each for, how much time you have and how much you enjoy each activity. Cutting out snacks, drinking less alcohol etc can also be a part of it, but isn't essential so long as you're exercising enough.
paulrockliffe said:
Cutting out snacks, drinking less alcohol etc can also be a part of it, but isn't essential so long as you're exercising enough.
I agree with most of what you say but IMO it's far easier to ditch 500 calories a day in food than it is to use an extra 500 with exercise. And as I suspect the calorie reduction probably needs to be nearer 1000/day ditching food will bring far quicker results.As far as the OP's question of which is better out of cycling or walking then I suspect walking. But this has to be sustainable as he has a fair bit to lose and walking the distance will take twice as long and will therefore require more commitment.
Never mind what burns more calories per hour. Do what you feel comfortable with. I'm sure a rowing machine burns a lot of calories per hour but I'd get sick of it within 15 minutes and I can easily spend 15 hours on the bike in the woods in the summer.
One of my best mates has no trouble biking being a big lad, we rode 700 miles in 10 days round the country because we were bored at uni, he peaked at 22 stone, moved to Canada and lost 6 stone in 6 months because there is way too much biking to be had out there.
Walk, bike, swim, row, whatever you do make sure you enjoy it, no point doing exercise for the sake of it, you'll go like the clappers for the first week and within a month you'll be back to square 1
One of my best mates has no trouble biking being a big lad, we rode 700 miles in 10 days round the country because we were bored at uni, he peaked at 22 stone, moved to Canada and lost 6 stone in 6 months because there is way too much biking to be had out there.
Walk, bike, swim, row, whatever you do make sure you enjoy it, no point doing exercise for the sake of it, you'll go like the clappers for the first week and within a month you'll be back to square 1
Well I like using my bike because I built it from sctatch and it was a bit of a hobby a few years ago. Only problem being its more an off road bike with chunky tyres so it adds that little bit more resistance.
Running is a no go, I simply cant run very far at all but I can walk miles no problem.
Diet is in hand
On a side note I have recently started getting back into weight lifting and its going well to be fair.
Running is a no go, I simply cant run very far at all but I can walk miles no problem.
Diet is in hand
On a side note I have recently started getting back into weight lifting and its going well to be fair.
If you have the time to spend 2 hours walking to/from work then I've no doubt walking will be a good bet. 4mph is a fair pace if you're 21st so could be a great way to shift a few pounds.
Despite being more efficient an 8 mile bike ride will still shift the pounds and it will be far easier to get the heart rate up cycling than it will be walking (it'll be easier on the joints too).
There are many theories about what's best and even 4 minutes of Tabata training (ultra high intensity interval training) is supposed to be the ultimate in fat burning. At the end of the day it's all b
ks as the best way to lose fat is the most enjoyable way for you. It really is pointless doing the most effective exercise if it's not sustainable so if you like cycling then do that, if you prefer walking then do that instead.
For me I think a combination of the two would be my choice as I enjoy both so my body would not get used to doing either.
Best of luck!
ETA: Well done with the weights. Keep it up! Many people neglect the weights during weight loss campaigns but it's definitely important.
Despite being more efficient an 8 mile bike ride will still shift the pounds and it will be far easier to get the heart rate up cycling than it will be walking (it'll be easier on the joints too).
There are many theories about what's best and even 4 minutes of Tabata training (ultra high intensity interval training) is supposed to be the ultimate in fat burning. At the end of the day it's all b
ks as the best way to lose fat is the most enjoyable way for you. It really is pointless doing the most effective exercise if it's not sustainable so if you like cycling then do that, if you prefer walking then do that instead.For me I think a combination of the two would be my choice as I enjoy both so my body would not get used to doing either.
Best of luck!
ETA: Well done with the weights. Keep it up! Many people neglect the weights during weight loss campaigns but it's definitely important.
Edited by Fatman2 on Tuesday 8th February 22:28
Bill said:
I agree with most of what you say but IMO it's far easier to ditch 500 calories a day in food than it is to use an extra 500 with exercise. And as I suspect the calorie reduction probably needs to be nearer 1000/day ditching food will bring far quicker results.
As far as the OP's question of which is better out of cycling or walking then I suspect walking. But this has to be sustainable as he has a fair bit to lose and walking the distance will take twice as long and will therefore require more commitment.
Agree. Don't think what I wrote and your reply are contradictory though, I said diet isn't essential, you're saying diet could be easier, both are right. But in my experience people that diet don't lose weight because 500 calories is relatively intangible compared with an hour cycling. Too easy to convince yourself you've cut 500 calories when you've cut 50. What will work best will be an individual thing, depending on your level of motivation and wil power.As far as the OP's question of which is better out of cycling or walking then I suspect walking. But this has to be sustainable as he has a fair bit to lose and walking the distance will take twice as long and will therefore require more commitment.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff