Originally Posted by
Leisesturm
I got DW an Apple Watch for Christmas, and she has mainly been using it to track all her exercise activities. Out of everything she does: swim, elliptical, treadmill, free weight ... cycling burns the least calories, hands down. I mean, even after 30 minutes/5mi. with one wicked hill to climb, she has barely busted 250 calories! For this reason, and all the reasons the o.p. mentioned, I stick by my opinion that, for getting or staying in shape, diet should be the cornerstone, supplemented (or not) by a gym (or home gym) program of hard free weight or machine strength training.
Cycling is for fun, and/or transportation, and it absolutely helps to be fit so you can get maximum enjoyment/efficiency from it, but the people that are shedding 10lb/wk on their cycling program are forgetting that simultaneous with their purchase of a bike to kill the unwanted extra calories, they also started to cut way back on unnecessary calorie intake. Novice riders can and do get seriously injured (and worse) far more than experienced cyclists. It's a catch-22, I know. How do you get more cycling experience if it's so dangerous to cycle as a novice ... well, it helps if you started young when you were still made of rubber, and also before SUV's were invented and drivers got so damn mean. If youefficient efficient didn't beat those deadlines, I for one wouldn't. Start. Seriously. It's harsh advice, but it comes from a good place.
Cycling is efficient transportation, which means the calorie burn is lower than other forms of exercise, but it's also something that with a relatively small amount of training one can keep doing for hours at a time. 30 minutes of running or lifting weights will burn more calories, but it's not hard to train to the point that 4-5 hours on a bike is fairly easy. 4-5 hours of running is pretty much a marathon for a beginner or a slow experienced runner, which is definitely not easy.