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.

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.

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

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.

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

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:

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

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....

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 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?

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 love Hershey's dark chocolate in the jumbo bar.

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.

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).

Yeah, why does he look like that?

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