Originally Posted by
mschwett
it hurts my head how complicated some people are making this.
cycling is more efficient than running:
if you cycle a mile on flat ground, you’ll burn less calories than running a mile, especially if you ride slowly.
some bikes are more efficient than others:
if you cycle a mile at low speed on flat ground on the drops on a crabon überbike with super low RR and excellent components, you’ll burn less calories than sitting upright on a heavy old beater with a rusty chain.
…. but when you’re cycling or running for exercise sake, you could fairly easily use the appropriate amount of effort / power (whatever your body is capable of) to burn the same amount of calories per unit of time. you’d just be going a hell of a lot further and faster on the bike. the reality is that most people don’t push a bike quite that hard - they coast, they get scared at speed, whatever, so on average i’m sure the calories burned per hour cycling by enthusiasts is somewhat less than by runners. but it doesn’t have to be.
Yes. Exactly. It's just a common sense observation. If you have a bike that's easier to pedal... it's easier to pedal. If the goal is exercise then "easier to pedal" beyond a certain point and price range might not be the goal (especially when easier to pedal comes with an expensive price tag). It's why we set the resistance on exercise machines higher for a harder workout. It's why we run inclines instead of flats. Of course there are many ways to work around the situation but that doesn't change that basic fact.
Another factor missing in a theoretical debate about bikes is the actual cost of choosing a position. I'm always trying to encourage people to exercise but cost is a real world practical consideration. When one says they can get just as good a workout with a top tier bike what is missing is the real world, out of pocket cost of that bike. People pay thousands more for that efficiency. If the goal is only exercise, you don't need to pay thousands more to do the same work a less expensive (efficient) bike will provide. If I say the cost of a bike to exercise is $5000, many people I know will balk. If I say, actually you can get the same workout for $1000, that's more agreeable. And it's true.
And, if people want to argue the premise I am all for it. I enjoy a spirited debate. But to make ad hominem attacks in an attempt to say "you're wrong" isn't debating. It's just showing one doesn't know how to present an argument in an intelligent manner.
Originally Posted by
wolfchild
I don't exercise and workout for the purpose of burning calories, I don't even count calories. I don't need to loose weight...The main reason why I exercise is to maintain fitness.
As do I. Part of staying fit is maintaining a certain weight however, and for many the primary goal is losing weight. If you are a North American that doesn't have to worry about gaining weight you are fortunate. Statistically that isn't the case.
As it is with anything, an individual's scenario may agree or disagree with the premise but that doesn't change the premise. This is why someone may argue they can get just as intense a workout on their bike as one can get running. Perhaps they can, if they work hard enough, but that isn't the case in general.