Training & Nutrition - Walking or cycling for losing weight.

I've recently come back from a tour where I lost maybe half a stone after 9 days of doing roughly 40 miles a day. I don;t get the opportunity to do that when at home. I'm lucky if I do 10 a day, and probably only do closer to 5 (what can I say, kids and work).
What I was wondering is, to keep off the weight and maybe loose more, am I better off walking or cycling the two miles or so to my daughter's school and back instead of cycling it, which takes about 15 mins and barely brings me out in a sweat. Walking it would take about half an hour, so that would be about an hour's walk in all.

Any opinions?

If you're doing such a small amount of work anyway, why not do both on different days? Let's you do some different things. Grab a backpack with weight and walk with it, etc. Lots you can do if you work with it. But honestly, diet is the most important factor.

Thanks for that.
Actually, my diet is good. It's just I've hit my 40s and my metabolism's slowed. Happened to my father exactly the same.
I never go obese, nor did he, just put on a bit of middle age spread, which I don;t like.

I walked for an hour before breakfast each morning and did it for several months. I added steps during the day for a total of about 12,000 to 15,000. I lost a pound or two at the most. I have been cycling as many days a week as possible for almost a year and have been averaging about 65 miles a week lately. Some weeks I manage 100 miles. Some weeks are much less. I have lost 16 pounds. I would have lost more, but several times I hit what I call "chocolate season." Those are times like Halloween, or Christmas, or Easter, or my birthday when people give us things made of chocolate. I do not resist well. My weight had plateaued at 212 pounds for several months and recently broke the barrier. It is now about 208. I try to stop pushing when I ride and I am able to ride more days a week, even if more slowly. I ride in the evening and may eat a small slice of cheese with a few crackers before bed so I do not awaken in the middle of the night with hunger pangs. Anyway, I vote for cycling as more effective than walking, but do most of it after the evening meal and before bed.

Thanks for that.
Actually, my diet is good. It's just I've hit my 40s and my metabolism's slowed. Happened to my father exactly the same.
I never go obese, nor did he, just put on a bit of middle age spread, which I don;t like.

Well, I had a heck of a time with my metabolism as well over the last several years, even though I'm only in my mid thirties. I was always cold except outside on hot summer days. Even winter here in Texas was frigid for me and I kept the heater on. It killed my wife who goes around in shorts and bare feet all winter long.

After changing my diet this past October I've completely reversed that slow metabolism. Thus winter I actually froze HER out, because I'd be sweating in shorts even after she went for the blankets. I don't know you from Adam, so I can't say it'll work for you, but it's very a very healthy way to eat should you wish to try it.

www.precisionnutrition.com. I've met Dr. Berardi and trust him implicitly.

I'd say, to start, cycle the two like a TT. Think of it as training so you can ride farther during what little time you have. :) So in a few weeks that ten will turn into 12.

I'm 68 and walk, Jog, weight train and bike. I've been doing this for 42 years, however, I didn't really bike much until I retired. I used to be more into canoeing and backpacking. The issue is one of time and efficiency. More rigorous activity burns calories faster, so if you are time pressed, they are more efficient.

During my two to three hour bike rides (that's saddle time and typically twice weekly), mostly single track, I burn something like 600 to 800 calories. It's very hard to burn many calories walking, but it's a valuable exercise.

Weight training builds muscle mass which raises the Basel metabolism rate which means you burn more calories even while sitting. Done properly, it also maintains the full range of joint motion and protects one from injury for active life styles.

As you age, you also need to consume fewer calories. That's best done by avoiding processed food and eating more natural, nutrient-dense as opposed to calorie dense foods. That said, some foods are calorie dense like nuts and peanut butter (containing peanuts and salt only) provide valuable fats, nutrition and suppress the appetite. So, one has to educate one's self nutrition to really eat correctly. Beware of diet books. If they worked, we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic.

Metabolism does not slow after 40. One starts to lose muscle mass in the early 30's which continues for the rest of the life span. If you don't cut back on calories, the muscle mass is replaced by fat. It's not really a weight issue, but a fat percentage issue assuming that one doesn't go "hog" wild on the eating and sedentary life style.

A key aging issue is bone loss. Weight training, jogging and to a much less degree, walking are really necessary to maintain strong bones into old age.

There are various tables on the web for calorie consumption vs. exercise type. You might do a google search. I don't have them book marked. If I remember correctly, for a fixed distance like 4 miles, you'll burn more calories walking. For a fixed time, like your one hour, you'll do much better with a more vigorous exercise.

My current favorite reference for nutrition is Monique Ryan's Sports Nutrition for Endurance Athletes. If you exercise over about 90 minutes (her definition), you qualify as an endurance athlete. Even if you don't, It's an excellent nutrition guide for any active person from a healthy-eating point of view and I've read a bunch of them over the years.

Al

Thanks for that, chaps, some great info and links. I'll check them all out, and take on board all you say.
Again, many thanks.

TwoBike - I know that chocolate resistance thing. It's my only weakness, and really try never to have it in the house. But oh you dark mistress, when you sneak in...

Lift weights.

Walking and cycling are great for burning calories. But you become a “skinny fat person”. The way “to keep off the weight and maybe loose more” is to change your metabolism. More muscle will ramp up your metabolism.

Lift weights.

Walking and cycling are great for burning calories. But you become a “skinny fat person”. The way “to keep off the weight and maybe loose more” is to change your metabolism. More muscle will ramp up your metabolism.

FTW! Nobody wants to be Jared from Subway. Sure, he's 300 pounds lighter, but he still looks like a lumpy little turd.

Lift weights.

Walking and cycling are great for burning calories. But you become a “skinny fat person”. The way “to keep off the weight and maybe loose more” is to change your metabolism. More muscle will ramp up your metabolism.

While weight lifting offers many benefits, "ramping up your metabolism" is more myth than fact (as is the "skinny fat person").

Many dedicated cyclists and runners rarely lift weights, and yet they manage to maintain very low body fat levels, and perform at high aerobic work levels for hours at a time.

For competitive runners and cyclists, the extra body mass gained from weight lifting is actually an impediment to performance.

However, for overall health and fitness (not to mention looking better), I think lifting weights once or twice per week is probably a good idea.

While weight lifting offers many benefits, "ramping up your metabolism" is more myth than fact (as is the "skinny fat person").

Many dedicated cyclists and runners rarely lift weights, and yet they manage to maintain very low body fat levels, and perform at high aerobic work levels for hours at a time.

.


Could you provide a refernce on the myth part? More muscle mass burns more energy at rest. If that's not true, I'd like to know why.

Professional road cyclist have a high risk of bone loss. They can maintain a low weight as some actually ride once around the world (25,000) miles in training. Most folks can't afford the time to do that. That narrow a focus is likely not as healthy as cross training.

Most folks have to take a multi-pronged approach to keeping the weight off.

Al

FTW! Nobody wants to be Jared from Subway. Sure, he's 300 pounds lighter, but he still looks like a lumpy little turd.


Sorry buddy, I missing something here. What do you mean?

BTW: Aikigreg is right on about Dr. Berardi. He mentioned one website: www.precisionnutrition.com. But also check out:

http://www.johnberardi.com/index.htm and be sure to click on the articles. They are FREE and great reading from a VERY knowledgeable guy

TwoBikes - I know that chocolate resistance thing. It's my only weakness, and really try never to have it in the house. But oh you dark mistress, when you sneak in... I recently discovered Hershey's Special Dark Chocolate in small squares. They taste like chocolate and give that good feeling, but after one or two small squares I had almost no desire to eat another. Almost....

While weight lifting offers many benefits, "ramping up your metabolism" is more myth than fact (as is the "skinny fat person").

Many dedicated cyclists and runners rarely lift weights, and yet they manage to maintain very low body fat levels, and perform at high aerobic work levels for hours at a time.

For competitive runners and cyclists, the extra body mass gained from weight lifting is actually an impediment to performance.

However, for overall health and fitness (not to mention looking better), I think lifting weights once or twice per week is probably a good idea.


No it's not a myth. It's been proven time and time and time again. Not to mention that bone density descreases as we get older, making us injury prone. weightlifting can reverse that damage - walking will never do that.

I've recently come back from a tour where I lost maybe half a stone after 9 days of doing roughly 40 miles a day. I don;t get the opportunity to do that when at home. I'm lucky if I do 10 a day, and probably only do closer to 5 (what can I say, kids and work).
What I was wondering is, to keep off the weight and maybe loose more, am I better off walking or cycling the two miles or so to my daughter's school and back instead of cycling it, which takes about 15 mins and barely brings me out in a sweat. Walking it would take about half an hour, so that would be about an hour's walk in all.

Any opinions?

I think the walking would be better - the half an hour exercise is better than the shorter trip, and you will have to continue to work both up and down hills.

Thanks for the input chaps. I kind of figured the walking might be better. The only other thing was to really sprint the short distance (riding), though I seem to remember reading somewhere that sprinting wasn't that good for losing weight, lower intensity being better. Is that right?

Thanks for the input chaps. I kind of figured the walking might be better. The only other thing was to really sprint the short distance (riding), though I seem to remember reading somewhere that sprinting wasn't that good for losing weight, lower intensity being better. Is that right?

I don't think so. Higher intensity is better for general fitness and a higher rate (per unit time) for burning calories. For a fixed distance, you just burn more calories walking than jogging or cycling. Actually, if I were you, I'd jog at a slow pace to get better aerobics, more muscle development and better bone fitness.

Al

Al.canoe --thanks for all the info in this thread!

Huh , i am 41, eat alot of sweets along with heavy foods & never had the fatness problem not even the slightest bit. Maybe it has something to do with burning off what one eats/drinks.

I recently discovered Hershey's Special Dark Chocolate in small squares. They taste like chocolate and give that good feeling, but after one or two small squares I had almost no desire to eat another. Almost....
I love Hershey's dark chocolate in the jumbo bar.

I've recently come back from a tour where I lost maybe half a stone after 9 days of doing roughly 40 miles a day. I don;t get the opportunity to do that when at home. I'm lucky if I do 10 a day, and probably only do closer to 5 (what can I say, kids and work).
What I was wondering is, to keep off the weight and maybe loose more, am I better off walking or cycling the two miles or so to my daughter's school and back instead of cycling it, which takes about 15 mins and barely brings me out in a sweat. Walking it would take about half an hour, so that would be about an hour's walk in all.

Any opinions?
My opinion is that you should try to free up more time for exercise. It isn't helpful to split hairs about the type of exercise if you're not even getting the minimum amount.

You need at least 30 minutes of vigorous exercise or 60 minutes of moderate exercise nearly every day just for minimal fitness. You need to double that if you want exercise to be a major component of a weight loss program.

It's really about priorities. We'd miss you if you were on BF less, but that might be one place to start.

I've recently come back from a tour where I lost maybe half a stone after 9 days of doing roughly 40 miles a day. I don;t get the opportunity to do that when at home. I'm lucky if I do 10 a day, and probably only do closer to 5 (what can I say, kids and work).
What I was wondering is, to keep off the weight and maybe loose more, am I better off walking or cycling the two miles or so to my daughter's school and back instead of cycling it, which takes about 15 mins and barely brings me out in a sweat. Walking it would take about half an hour, so that would be about an hour's walk in all.

Any opinions?

Cycling is generally a better way to burn calories than walking, but in your case it might not be.

A rule of thumb is that walking burns around 90 calories per mile, while cycling burns around 40.

But, cycling is also generally more strenuous than walking and so on a "per hour" basis you can usually burn more calories cycling than walking.

So, if you have an hour to exercise, I would recommend cycling (you can easily burn 600 calories in an hour of cycling...about twice what you'd burn walking for an hour).

But, in your case, with only a 2 mile distance involved, you'll likely burn more calories by walking that distance rather than cycling it (because you'll be using a less efficient way of moving, and you'll be moving for a longer time period).

FTW! Nobody wants to be Jared from Subway. Sure, he's 300 pounds lighter, but he still looks like a lumpy little turd.


Yeah, why does he look like that?

My opinion is that you should try to free up more time for exercise. It isn't helpful to split hairs about the type of exercise if you're not even getting the minimum amount.

You need at least 30 minutes of vigorous exercise or 60 minutes of moderate exercise nearly every day just for minimal fitness. You need to double that if you want exercise to be a major component of a weight loss program.

It's really about priorities. We'd miss you if you were on BF less, but that might be one place to start.


There is no scientifically based research that would support these statements, particularly the one about weight loss which I think is excessive. That said, I do agree.

My "rule" is at least 6-hours of exercise (cross-training) a week with arround 4 at very high levels of intensity. That's what it takes for me to feel my best; defined as a very high energy level and alertness all day long with about 7 hours of sleep per night. I've been doing something on that order for about 42 years.

If you don't watch your diet, you can still be over-weight with my "rule".

This rule has saved my life according to 3-neurologists when in my 50's, the lining in one of my carotid arteries shredded and completely blocked the blood flow. Not only did I survive (survival rate about 20%) and un brain-damaged (open to debate according to some), but within 3-months the blockage dissolved. The neurologists said that was not supposed to happen except with the blood chemistry normally found in folks younger than the early 30's.

As you say, it's an issue of priorities. Fitness became "job one" for me when I refused drugs to cure my high blood pressure (age 26) and began jogging instead. Cured it in three months. That was the "awakening" event.

Al

There is no scientifically based research that would support these statements, particularly the one about weight loss which I think is excessive. That said, I do agree.

I'm not sure how "scientific" it is but there is evidence for my statement about 30 to 90 minutes of exercise a day.

Numerous observational studies have shown improvements from exercise in heart rate, blood sugar, cholesterol, and blood pressure. These improvements are greatest with 20 to 30 minutes/day, with continued but diminishing improvements for longer periods of exercise. The improvements occur with mild, moderate and vigorous exerise.

Analysis of self-reports at the National Weight ControL Registry (http://www.nwcr.ws/) shows that people who were most successful at maintaining large weight loss exercised at least 60 minutes/day.

What about losing weight with exercise? Simple math will show that burning 500 additional calories/day would lead to a weight loss of one pound a week. Most of us (especially if middle-aged or older) would best sustain exercise at a mild or moderate intensity, so that would require roughly 90 minutes of daily exercise for significant weight loss.

So, I think it's fair to make the following conclusions about the duration of daily exercise:

30 minutes -- For general health and fitness
60 minutes -- to help maintain weight loss
90 minutes -- to actually lose significant weight without restricting calories.

I'm not sure how "scientific" it is but there is evidence for my statement about 30 to 90 minutes of exercise a day.

.[/LIST]

Sure there is evidence, mostly anecdotal or based on poorly done science. You hear about these studies all the time in the media. Very often the sample sizes are too small for statistical rigor. Most often the data is based solely on population studies (no lab work, physical exams, etc) which are prone to correlation errors. Also, often the evidence is based on simple questionnaires which rely on the memory, perception and honesty of the test subjects. There is so much chaff out there it's virtually impossible to identify the wheat.

If there was really good science there wouldn't so many studies with conflicting results. For example first we were told we need copious amounts of milk products for calcium, now there are studies which show that dairy products have a strong association with prostate cancer, bone breakage and most recently, it's been tied to the incidence of Alzheimer's.

There's almost a study out there that will support what ever one wants to believe about nutrition or exercise. Then there's the diets!

I think it's safe to say that exercise is good and you need to do some for good health. But to divide into minutes of a certain intensity for each day is exploiting the data far beyond it's rigor or information content.

One exception I can think of is Cooper's old aerobic point system. He developed a point system for various aerobic exercises as a function of distance and time and recommended a 30 point minimum per week. He developed it based on exercising something like 6000 Air Force "volunteers". I believe blood was drown to measure oxygen content plus the other relevant cardio parameters were regularly measured. My first really good general practice doctor worked with Cooper when he (my doctor, not Cooper) was in the Air Force at the local Air Force base.

Cooper published his methodology and results in detail so you could asses the quality of the work for yourself. Back in those days, studies weren't released in sound bites or short paragraphs. Cooper's results are considered as valid today as they were then in the '70's

He know runs the Cooper Institute in Dallas, testifies before congress and has recently backed-off the 30 point minimum. He says that 30 is just too high. Even he apparently doesn't know how much aerobics one needs on a weekly basis much less on a daily basis.

All that said, after experimenting over the years on myslf, I know for sure I need at least 6 hours per week with 4 at very high intensity to meet MY criteria of good health.


Al

This rule has saved my life according to 3-neurologists when in my 50's, the lining in one of my carotid arteries shredded and completely blocked the blood flow. Not only did I survive (survival rate about 20%) and un brain-damaged (open to debate according to some), but within 3-months the blockage dissolved. The neurologists said that was not supposed to happen except with the blood chemistry normally found in folks younger than the early 30's.

As you say, it's an issue of priorities. Fitness became "job one" for me when I refused drugs to cure my high blood pressure (age 26) and began jogging instead. Cured it in three months. That was the "awakening" event.

Al

That's some story, you sound like a survivor. I like the idea of fitness being a job. I've managed to make more time, and have been cycling more this week - managing about an hour a day, so I'm feeling a lot better about it. Sleeping better too.

Thanks for all the input, chaps. Much appreciated.

you sound like a survivor. .

Not really, it was a very much un anticipated benefit of a very high level of aerobic/cardio fitness.

Al

Walking is better. Sadly, the bicycle is a highly efficient machine and will do a lot of the work for you and you will burn less calories.

Also, walking will allow you to chat with your daughter. Quality bonding time.

Walking is better. Sadly, the bicycle is a highly efficient machine and will do a lot of the work for you and you will burn less calories.

On a "per mile" basis, yes. But, on a "per hour" basis, cycling burns about twice as many calories as walking.

Walking is better. Sadly, the bicycle is a highly efficient machine and will do a lot of the work for you and you will burn less calories.

Also, walking will allow you to chat with your daughter. Quality bonding time.
Do you feel you have to select one as better? They're both fantastic, good for specific occasions or according to personal preference.

The bike doesn't actually do the work for you, it magnifies the work that you do. Like SSP said, most people work harder on a bike than they do walking. Of course, you can choose how hard you work with either a bike or on foot.

I don't have a daughter but I've had some great chats with my stepson....while riding our bikes.

I Haven't seen a post yet from SSA relative to my questioning the myth's of weight training. I thought this excerp from a recent article would be of interest. I think it's hard to over-sell the benefits of at least moderate weight training as a life-long activity.

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Exercise_Reverses_Aging_In_Human_Skeletal_Muscle_999.html

Exercise Reverses Aging In Human Skeletal Muscle
by Staff Writers
Ontario, Canada (SPX) May 23, 2007

Buck Institute faculty leads study showing 'genetic fingerprint'
becoming younger in healthy seniors who did resistance training Not only
does exercise make most people feel better and perform physical tasks
better, it now appears that exercise - specifically, resistance training
-- actually rejuvenates muscle tissue in healthy senior citizens.

A recent study, co-led by Buck Institute faculty member Simon Melov,
PhD, and Mark Tarnopolsky, MD, PhD, of McMaster University Medical
Center in Hamilton, Ontario, involved before and after analysis of gene
expression profiles in tissue samples taken from 25 healthy older men
and women who underwent six months of twice weekly resistance training,
compared to a similar analysis of tissue samples taken from younger
healthy men and women. The results of the study appear in the May 23
edition of the on-line, open access journal PLoS One.


The gene expression profiles involved age-specific mitochondrial
function; mitochondria act as the "powerhouse" of cells. Multiple
studies have suggested that mitochondrial dysfunction is involved in the
loss of muscle mass and functional impairment commonly seen in older
people. The study was the first to examine the gene expression profile,
or the molecular "fingerprint", of aging in healthy disease-free humans.


Results showed that in the older adults, there was a decline in
mitochondrial function with age. However, exercise resulted in a
remarkable reversal of the genetic fingerprint back to levels similar to
those seen in the younger adults. The study also measured muscle
strength. Before exercise training, the older adults were 59% weaker
than the younger adults, but after the training the strength of the
older adults improved by about 50%, such that they were only 38% weaker
than the young adults.


"We were very surprised by the results of the study," said Melov. "We
expected to see gene expressions that stayed fairly steady in the older
adults. The fact that their 'genetic fingerprints' so dramatically
reversed course gives credence to the value of exercise, not only as a
means of improving health, but of reversing the aging process itself,
which is an additional incentive to exercise as you get older."

Do you feel you have to select one as better? They're both fantastic, good for specific occasions or according to personal preference.

The bike doesn't actually do the work for you, it magnifies the work that you do. Like SSP said, most people work harder on a bike than they do walking. Of course, you can choose how hard you work with either a bike or on foot.

I don't have a daughter but I've had some great chats with my stepson....while riding our bikes.


I have a bike seat for my daughter that goes on the the top tube. She's closer to me there, and we have some great chats as I cycle her to school.