What burns more calories: 5k cycling commute or same walking?

Depends on how fast you ride. A walk is about 90 calories a mile. Biking that distance can burn almost no calories but if you go 20mph + or treat it like an interval the whole time, you can burn some serious calories pushing that kind of pace.

So unless you go top speed, walking is a better commuting exercise than cycling? If energy expenditure is the goal.

Walking takes me 1 hour. Cycling 20 minutes. I finish the cycle breathing heavily. If I do it walking my heart rate barely notices it.

Pretty much impossible to burn 90kcal per mile on a bike for any length of time. A 200lb rider putting out around 320 watts to go 25mph will burn only about 1200kcal per hour, or 20kcal per minute, which is about 50kcal per mile. And 25mph is a very respectable pace for a one hour time trial, most people can't do it.

However, if you measure by time instead of distance, an hour spent walking will burn maybe 300 kcal. Very easy to burn more than that in an hour's cycling, 15 mph would do it even on totally flat terrain.

One can get winded running up two flights of steps, takes only a few seconds and you are winded but your not burning many calories.

1 hour of steady walking should burn more calories than the 20 minute bike. Running is the same way, still about 90 calories a mile, you just get there faster. I really think think though that you can narrow that gap by riding as hard as you can or doing intervals on the route. But, you can soft pedal, or catch a break from a downhill while riding and not get as much benefit.

If your intention is to burn as many calories as possible in the shortest time, running is better than biking (IMHO), up to a point. The exception is when going for a long and fast bike ride, trying to maintain over 20mph. The more wind resistance you make by going faster and faster really makes you work hard and calories burn. And big climbs burn calories. So despite not being able to burn the same amount of calories per mile, what's nice about biking is that you can rest here and there and sustain a longer workout than running/walking. I look more at time than miles. In 1:46, I can run 13.1 miles and burn an estimated 2000 calories. On the bike doing 31 miles, I burn an estimated 1600 calories for the same amount of time. Ask me to run another 13 miles, I will hate you and suffer greatly and may not finish. Ask me to ride another 31 miles on the bike, no problem. So while running is more effective, most people cannot do it as long and therefore do not burn as many calories.

Wow, rope jumping.... https://www.mayoclinic.com/health/exercise/SM00109

Yes. Running would burn more. Bicycles were invented as labor *saving* devices. Biking is intended to get you there faster on less energy.

strap on a heart rate monitor and find out.

Biking there, back home and back to work again would probably burn more calories than walking in the same amount of time (depending on how much time you spend sitting at stop lights).

As noted, running will burn the most calories, but finding a longer route to bike will be more fun and burn more calories than walking.

You're assuming that mainly speed can make people burn calories fast but climbing hills and heavy loaded bike too (strong wind too but not very easy to control)

Even if an obvious thing. I hadn't thought about making the route on the way back longer (when I don't have the time pressure of the morning). Joy ride + commute combo.

Thanks for the idea

Have you tried "martial art" workout?

No, I'm not assuming that. It's just simpler to do the calculations if one eliminates a few variables. And whether you are going uphill, or on a heavy bike, watts are watts. There are very few people who can put out enough power to burn more than 1000kcal per hour for several hours.

There isn't necessarily more variables it's just a different approach and different mindset but i'm sure you know that.

As a general rule, you'll burn more calories per minute on a bike and more calories per mile on foot. There may be extremities where this doesn't hold true (riding hard on a rusty old clunker will probably burn more calories than a slow saunter on foot where you only cover a mile or so in an hour) but for most practical purposes it will be accurate.

Bingo. Bikes are the most efficient transportation in the world. Burning calories is not the goal.

It depends on who is riding. Look at the different forum categories. There is nearly as many use as people even here on the commuting one...

Add a strong wind to the ride and the effort requires jumps. I'd say the burn must increase in proportion.

I suspect I burn more calories on my ride up out of the parking garage than the rest of the ride. I get to the street and my heart is pounding quite successfully.

I read somewhere that walking is more calories per mile, biking is more calories per minute. I think the article assumed a normal pace for both. YMMV

+1

Calories burned/ time can be very closely approximated as a function of heart rate over time. If you do a brisk walk at 120 BPM, you will burn more cal/min than a leisurely walk at 90 bpm. Here's the kicker. Since you are traveling faster at 120 bpm, you will cover more distance than you will at 90 bpm. This means that Cal / distance is roughly the same.

A bike is different in that if you are doing les than 12 mph, this calculation goes out the window because the amount of effort drops drastically if you are not constantly pedaling. Over 15 mph you will be pedaling constantly and the Cal /distance will once again become about the same.

At a given heart rate, say 120, you will burn the same amount of Calories/time on a bike as you will walking, but you will go much farther on a bike. Conversely you will burn more calories per mile walking than on a bike, but it will take you longer.

Your question can't be answered correctly without more information. It depends on your weight, plus the weight of your bike and gear, as well as your speed cycling or running. Calorie burn goes way up at higher levels of exertion. For example, you will burn substantially more calories cycling 10 miles at 18 mph than you will riding the same distance at 12 mph -- even though the slower pace takes more time. I used to think running burned more calories than cycling, but after I ran the numbers, I found that I actually burn more calories cycling for an hour than I do running the same amount of time. That's because I can cycle at a much higher pace than I can run.

I track all of my calories eaten as well as burned through exercise using an app called LoseIt. This has been real eye-opening for me because I previously hadn't realized how much more calories you burn by riding faster -- that is, using more exertion. For example, I burn about 650 calories riding to work at 14-15 mph pace but about 725 calories riding the same distance at a 16-17 mph pace.

How closely does your change in weight match the app's estimate of calories in and calories out?

A lot of us do that. I actually started bike commuting when I was training for a triathlon and I realized that if I had my bike with me at the end of the work day, I wouldn't blow off my bike workout.

If I bike ride 7.5 miles @ approx 18-20mph and do it under 25 minutes, I will have burned about 300 calories. That's according to bike computer going off cadence/speed sensor and heart monitor. I have a few intersections to cross, so its a lot of stop/restarts.

This. Walking and running per mile both burn many more calories than biking. Per time? Now it depends on how much effort you're putting out walking/running or biking.