running vs biking

R

Roadrunner52

0
Is any particular one better for staying in shape, both cardiovascularly and as far as muscle/fat goes?

According to online calculators I've seen, running typically burns much more calories for the same amount of time
 
slight sidebar...cycling is easier on your joints. ;)
 
Yes, running generally does burn more calores / hour than cycling. It also is rougher on the joints, but, that pounding is good for improving bone density! Both have benefits and drawbacks. I prefer cycling because I go faster and I find it less boring. I run for triathlon training.

Why not do both?
 
g8r80 said:
Yes, running generally does burn more calores / hour than cycling. It also is rougher on the joints, but, that pounding is good for improving bone density! Both have benefits and drawbacks. I prefer cycling because I go faster and I find it less boring. I run for triathlon training.

Why not do both?
Click to expand...

Well I pretty much do both right now, I was just wondering what the pros and cons were. I guess mixing in both is best?
 
If you were interested in becoming a better cyclist or runner, I would recommend doing that one almost exclusively. But, if you are interested in improving your overall fitness, I think a mix of the two is a very good cardio plan.

Then, you could enter a duathlon (run - bike -run).
 
g8r80 said:
If you were interested in becoming a better cyclist or runner, I would recommend doing that one almost exclusively. But, if you are interested in improving your overall fitness, I think a mix of the two is a very good cardio plan.

Then, you could enter a duathlon (run - bike -run).
Click to expand...

Hmm I guess I'll just stick with both then.
 
silversam7 said:
I would rather run, but that is jsut me.
Click to expand...

well, thanks lol...that doesn't help much, but enjoy your runs :)

I like to do both...I mean I've been biking for like my entire life and only started running about a year or a little more ago to help in my weight loss diet....but now I do enjoy it, and I enjoy both now
 
According to the readings on the bike at the gym, I burned 678 calories in just over an hour today could do that in just slightly more than half the time if I was running I think. Are the numbers really that different? Is there a good number to shoot for per session, or is that irrelevant?
 
Running doesn't burn twice the calories as biking. Running burns about 110 calories / mile so if you are running 8min miles, that will be about 800 miles / hour.
 
I don't care what anyone says....

There are only 2 types of runners: those who have blown-out their knees...and those who will blow-out their knees!

I prefer cycling. I sweat like a pig and I just couldn't carry enough water with me if I ran.

Hey SkiBikeSwim...what kind of a silly screen name is that? Me and StrokeSmackSpank think you're copying us....what's up with that? ;)
 
g8r80 said:
Running doesn't burn twice the calories as biking. Running burns about 110 calories / mile so if you are running 8min miles, that will be about 800 miles / hour.

Comparing Cycling With Running
Click to expand...

well I run on an incline or do intervals on the treadmill and I burn between 900-1000 calories an hour according to it's readings. Even if you use a calculator for a 7min mile for 35 minutes, which is about what I can do, it says 517 calories burned
Bodybuilding.com - Calories Burned While Exercising.

if you look at the bicycling (stationary) one, it's between 250 and 390 calories for that same amount of time, depending on if the exercise was moderate or vigorous...so it's close to double according to this calculator....how do you know what "vigorous" is anyway....I biked 22.29 miles in 60 min, would that be considered moderate or vigorous? Can you determine this by the average rpms or what?
 
Roadrunner52 said:
well I run on an incline or do intervals on the treadmill and I burn between 900-1000 calories an hour according to it's readings. Even if you use a calculator for a 7min mile for 35 minutes, which is about what I can do, it says 517 calories burned
Bodybuilding.com - Calories Burned While Exercising.

if you look at the bicycling (stationary) one, it's between 250 and 390 calories for that same amount of time, depending on if the exercise was moderate or vigorous...so it's close to double according to this calculator....how do you know what "vigorous" is anyway....I biked 22.29 miles in 60 min, would that be considered moderate or vigorous? Can you determine this by the average rpms or what?
Click to expand...

22.29 miles/hour on a road bike would be hauling @ss - definitely vigorous. On a stationary bike, it would not be as hard, but would still be vigorous I would think.

I don't trust the calorie burning estimators on the machines. Go with a web page estimator, like bodybuilding.com, and just do it.
 
g8r80 said:
22.29 miles/hour on a road bike would be hauling @ss - definitely vigorous. On a stationary bike, it would not be as hard, but would still be vigorous I would think.

I don't trust the calorie burning estimators on the machines. Go with a web page estimator, like bodybuilding.com, and just do it.
Click to expand...

Well I just showed you numbers from BB.com lol and I was told before that that running doesn't burn twice as many calories....However, clearly, it does (almost) according to bb.com

Should I aim for a certain number of cals burned per cardio session, or just focus on total time?
 
g8r80 said:
Running doesn't burn twice the calories as biking. Running burns about 110 calories / mile so if you are running 8min miles, that will be about 800 miles / hour.
Click to expand...

Actually, 8 min miles are 7.5 miles / hour. :D 800 miles / hour is is moving. Sorry, had to say something.

I have heard 100 & 110 calories are burned per mile running or walking, but I think this is based off of an average sized person. Per your link g8r80, the biking calculation takes into affect the size of the biker. I am pretty sure at 212 lbs I burn more than 110 calories per mile. I haven't looked into this much though, but I have often seen it stated you burn 100 calories per mile walking/running and I don't think that fits well for everyone.
 
Roadrunner52 said:
Well I just showed you numbers from BB.com lol and I was told before that that running doesn't burn twice as many calories....However, clearly, it does (almost) according to bb.com

Should I aim for a certain number of cals burned per cardio session, or just focus on total time?
Click to expand...

I didn't look up that web page because I was too lazy. There is quite a bit of noise when it comes to comparing cals burned by cycling vs. running. On this page, 1 hour of cycling at 20 mph (a fast pace) burns 1121 cals. To get that cal expenditure by running, you'd have to crank out 6 min. miles for an hour which would be damn tough! This is consistent with the oft-quoted 110 cals / hour burned running.

Yes, focus on cals burned because that will take into account duration and intensity.

Out!
 
Drex said:
Actually, 8 min miles are 7.5 miles / hour. :D 800 miles / hour is is moving. Sorry, had to say something.

I have heard 100 & 110 calories are burned per mile running or walking, but I think this is based off of an average sized person. Per your link g8r80, the biking calculation takes into affect the size of the biker. I am pretty sure at 212 lbs I burn more than 110 calories per mile. I haven't looked into this much though, but I have often seen it stated you burn 100 calories per mile walking/running and I don't think that fits well for everyone.
Click to expand...

I was just checkin' to see who actually reads my crap!:D
 
g8r80 said:
I didn't look up that web page because I was too lazy. There is quite a bit of noise when it comes to comparing cals burned by cycling vs. running. On this page, 1 hour of cycling at 20 mph (a fast pace) burns 1121 cals. To get that cal expenditure by running, you'd have to crank out 6 min. miles for an hour which would be damn tough! This is consistent with the oft-quoted 110 cals / hour burned running.

Yes, focus on cals burned because that will take into account duration and intensity.

Out!
Click to expand...

Okay, well if I have to focus on cals burned than how do I REALLY know how many I'm burning when I'm either running OR biking? Because according to what you just said, I would have burned over 1100 calories (since 22.29 miles in an hour is obviously 22.29 mph :) ), but the machine only read 678 calories. And when I ride my exercise bike at home, according to that I avg about 17 cals per minute, which is a little over 1000 an hour....Help me out lol

ps: Do you think that 100 calories per mile is accurate when running?
 
I cycle and run. Cycling is probably more enjoyable although I always feel like I've had a better workout after I run. I think the crosstraining benefits are good and the cycling helps give my joints a bit of a break. I recommend doing both if you enjoy them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top