Noob - Running vs Cycling question

It really depends on the intensity. The calorie charts just show that in order to burn the same amount of calories in the same amount of time, it is necessary to bike faster than one runs.

I'm an ex-runner, although I do run occassionaly.

I have to question those figures, 5mph is barely above walking pace. Running at that pace is simply a stepping stone to a faster pace as your fitness improves and with improved fitness will also come a higher calorie burn.

The same applies to cycling. As your fitness improves you will ride quicker and reap the rewards.

Running vs Cycling: As Keydates points out, it really depends on the intensity. Generally runners tend to do it with a bit more intensity than cyclists, but that is certainly not the case for everyone. If you really want to know how hard you are exercising, get a heart rate monitor as it will tell you how hard you are exercising within your own fitness level.

However the first rule of fitness is that you have to have actually done something. The biggest killer is motovation. Personally I wouldn't get hung up on metrics like calorie burn / hour and exercise type A vs exercise type B and simply concentrate on ensuring that you enjoy doing it.

Combine the cycling with a good diet and you will reap the rewards.

Cheers, Michael.

kevotron said:

I checked in various locations on the net and have read that biking vs runing is almost a 5:1 ratio mileage wise. I have then seen in a number of "Calories Burned" charts where it indicates that a 5 mph pace of running for my weight burns about 600-700 calories an hour (depending on the website and chart). When I look at biking for my weight it says calories burned biking 15MPH for one hour is 600-700 calories as well. So basically according to these charts you burn the same amount of calories biking or running. So why do I keep seeing people saying "Oh you have to bike WAY more to burn the same amount of calories." Its disheartening because from what I read they make it sound like biking less then 20 miles a pop is useless (I am new and do about 8-10 miles 4x a week.)

Those numbers are consistent, although your biking:running ratio is inverted - you spend 5x the calories per mile running as you would biking*. However, in constant terms, your heart doesn't know the difference. It can pump only so much oxygenated blood per minute, which is roughly how many calories you burn (at least for sub-anaerobic exercise). So, in terms of calories/hour, it should be a wash. Due to the difference in the stress on the joints, I find it easier to bike for an hour than run, so I'll never burn enough running to compete with biking.

For weight control, you just need to get your heart pumping into the aerobic zone for 20 minutes or more. The aerobic zone is actually pretty low (if you're breathing hard, you've overdone it). If you're in the condition where you've run or biked before, you can probably sustain that for at least an hour or two. So, I'd say if you can get 30 minutes, you're doing some good.

*Note: I've seen the ratio as 1:3, but there's undoubtedly a very wide range depending on how hard you're pedaling.

Great, that all makes a lot of sense. I just cant take the pounding from running anymore. i used to be able to run 6-8 miles a day, but now after about two days of that my back goes out for about a week. I have seen docs, chiros and running experts. There is really nothing that can be done to that end. The more I bike the more I am excited and enjoy it. I pedaled my fat little can 11 miles last night.

Personally i still find i can sustain higher HR's & kcals/hour running compared to cycling;
But (for me) cycling wins in sustainable kcals/week by at least 2x due to the injury issue.
I think on these forums i've seen running refered to as 'the heroin of excercise' 🙂

The ballpark figures I have are 30 kcals/mile cycling (but time & intensity are more accurate to estimate expenditure) and 100kcals/mile running/walking(more linear so distance is a better measure)

I've found cycling much more effective when focussing on an HRM, & clocking up time in zone, & totally ignoring distance/speed as it's so randomized by hills,wind etc.

As a bit of a triathlete, I absolutely agree that calories burned is nearly exclusively tied to heart rate and duration, as opposed to various types of exertion. That said, I have found that I typically burn a few more calories per hour running than cycling, as I often run at a higher HR. However, I can maintain an aggressive pace for a longer period of time when cycling, oftentimes much longer. So the net effect is that even though I burn a few more calories per hour running, I can ride for a much longer period of time, and therefore actually end up burning more calories after cycling workouts.

Hope that made some sort of sense.

Unless you are very well trained you are better off walking to loose weight than running. Running is much more intense than walking but a 2 hour brisk walk can be done by almost anyone and will burn much more calories than a 20 minute run (which most untrained people could not do anyway). An orthopaedic surgeon I know says that his bread and butter business is middle aged men that run. Feet, knees, hips, backs all take a pounding when you run and if you are overweight, then the problem is worse.

Bike riding can be a good low impact exercise that will help with weight loss but the main ingredient is to regulate your diet because one pig out can negate a weeks worth of riding.