All things being equal, meaning the topography, climate, distance (miles), etc ... which activity would burn more calories? Walking or cycling?

Thx
M

Walking. You can't coast. ;-)

I checked a few sources and this summarizes what I found:

Assuming heart rate is kept in the cardio range (approx 120-150):
Walking = around 400 Cal per hour
Cycling = around 500-700 Cal per hour

There was a much greater range of numbers for cycling than for walking. The cycling number is likely to be higher; the walking number is likely to be lower.

EDIT: this assumes distance is not equal, but time is. Over the same distance, walking would probably use more Calories because it would take so much longer.

Dagna

Working hard, you can ride 20 miles in an hour... Not likely walking.

It's a matter of intensity per amount of time. Walking can be anything from ambling along on level ground to working your way up steep hills at a hard pace.

Likewise with the bike; cruising at 10mph on your local fitness trail is a lot different than trying to ascend your local hill at top speed....

Most people who are in decent shape find a limit while walking; it's hard to keep an aerobic heart-rate level up without breaking into a run. Not so with the bike; even on level ground you can work as hard as you like.

I may have lifted this link from BF, but it gives the number of calories burned during many different kinds activities and at the level of intensity exerted.

https://www.primusweb.com/fitnesspart...e/calculat.htm

AHEM!

Cycling FIXED

Cycling is more fun, so you do more of it, so it doesn't actually matter if it burns more calories or not.

But having said that I'm pretty sure that a decently paced bike ride will burn more calories than a decently paced hike, unless you compare a flat coast down to the mall with a trek in the Himalayas.

With everything being equal, I'd think walking would burn more.

I personally hate walking cause its so dam slow...

Mmmmmmmmmmm......... I just finished a 10 mile brisk walk today and my legs are still buzzing!

.......................... use different muscles I guess.

...................... I miss the speed.

....... and the coasting part.

... a lot!

I think that over the same period of time, cycling would be more energetically costly and would exercise more strain on the muscles than walking, at least the way I do each.

Walking is a bit too slow for me too... it's also harder to walk in the rain than it is to ride. But for me it's a nice alternative if I don't feel like doing a high-intensity exercise

Walking? ...whats that?

No but check it out; track stand.

I put on a weight vest with 40pds while walking...bet I burn more than biking, but sometimes I wear 20+ pds in weight vest while riding.....am I burning more than walking??

Hard to say, but sheer weight means little in cycling until you start to ascend; or in accellerating. Maintaining a steady pace on level ground you get more resitance from the air as you go faster than you would from any added weight.

Based on a "calorie burn" computer I found online somewhere, I think I burn about 100 calories per mile walking (4.5 mph) and about 50 calories per mile cycling (13+ mph). BUT, as others have pointed out, you burn more calories PER HOUR cycling because you go more miles in the same amount of time.

This post was interesting to me because I started regular fast walking in 2003 to lose weight. I did 4 miles a day as hard as I could go, and I went every single day. For a while, I restricted my calorie intake, too. Over the summer of 2003, I lost about 25-30 pounds. To maintain, I kept walking every day, even after I had lost the all weight I wanted to lose.

Then I tried jogging, which in my case was a stupid thing to do. Between improper shoes and an aging body, I hurt my ankle so badly than I couldn't walk (for exercise). But I had to have SOME kind of exercise, so I wouldn't get out of the habit. Then I remembered my son's MTB sitting in the garage--and the rest, as they say, is history.

I'm not sure I've lost any more weight since I started cycling, but I've definitely kept it off, and cycling is way more FUN than just walking around and around the neighborhood. I no longer count calories--I just go out every day and burn them all off.

My ankles don't hurt, my legs feel good--the benefits just go on and on.

Change the word from walk to hike and it takes on a whole new meaning. You can hike around the block or you can hike over to the local REI and pick up a copy of Peak-Bagging and the get ready for some serious off the bike cross training. Whether you stay in the neighborhood or set out for the highest point you can find, walking is something we are well suited for, requires no training and little if any specialized gear.

TIME is the limited resource. Distance is virtually unending.

I picked up cycling because I cannot commute walking in a reasonable amount of time.

When I started this post it was to see if my wife's walking exercise beat mine. True, I cover longer distances than she does in the same amount of time; but I get to coast.

Simple example: There is a hill near my house. My wife walks/jogs that hill every other day and for kicks, I said I'll walk with her. I got KILLED. My legs hurt and my cardio was way up. If I cycled the same hill, no doubt I would done it in granny gear, but then I would have been racing down. Not so with walking. I had to put each foot forward and not tend to run. IMHO, walking is d'fntly more calorie burning exercise than biking - with all things equal.

Which now brings to my next Q. The cost involved with cycling vs walking. True, walking is way cheaper, but how does one convince the spouse that cycling is a blast of fun and hence the extra cost is the fun factor? How do you guys do it?

M

Slvoid, is that you in the picture?

Oh if only this were right. I can probably keep up over 20mph for an hour and according to this I would burn over 2000 cals.

My wife spent YEARS trying to get me to exercise--so she can hardly complain now, even if I want to spend big bucks.

Another thought: in my case, cycling is cheaper than anti-depressants would be. Maybe that's how the fun factor is relevant!

Uh.. sure.

I once read that Biking is like running for lazy people.

Enjoy

And the problem with that IS?

In terms of cardio-vascular efficiency and power output, well-trained cyclists rank above nearly all athletes.
"Running" is a broad term, and the physiology of sprinting, for instance, is much different than long-distance running. Just look at the body types....

Cycling is essentially non-impactive, so it tends (provided the bike is well-fitted to the rider) to be much friendlier to the joints compared to running.

Bottom line-You can work as hard as you want to.