Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

So here in the land of clogs, tulips and Grolsch I have a question. Which would improve my fitness more: Walking or cycling in each morning. It's a flat (obviously http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif) route about 20/25mins walk and 7mins by bike, same distance.

It is somewhat academic as I'm not a morning person so would never getup early enough too walk in and make it on time, but I am curious.


And a promotion! Over 50 posts, or the average amount of posts AT or Strategia make in a couple of days http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

"Get rid of the nickle plated sissy *** cycle and get yourself a Harley." - Tommy Lee Jones. (Sorta)

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

You pay for it, I'll ride it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

Over that short a distance, probably equally efficacious. Weight loss, improved cardiovascular performance and general exercise tolerance occur when an individual pushes their body for more than thirty minutes at a pace that just makes them able to carry a conversation.

My general advice to folks is to try the 20 minute challenge where they run/bike/swim for twenty minutes at a pace they can maintain three to five times per week for two weeks. After the two weeks (establishing the habit of working out), add two minutes per week.

It is critical to
a.) not push yourself too hard initially.
b.) find a buddy to keep you on-track with your exercise schedule.
c.) stop if you have pain.
d.) wear comfortable and appropriate clothing for the exercise (wearing multiple layers of clothes to help "sweat off the pounds" can be dangerous)
e.) hydrate hydrate hydrate before and after exercise - water and some sports drinks not sodas/coffee

Obviously if you have medical problems, consult your doctor first. He/she may recommend a stress test on a treadmill before initiating any new exercise regimen.

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

It does make a difference where in this country you are (obviously a different part than where I am, as I haven't seen any clogs, tulips or Grolsch today...). If you're in Amsterdam, go by bike. The reason is that everybody else in traffic there fears the bikes. Whenever I'm there, bikes do kamikaze attacks on me, whether I'm walking or driving my car.

Apart from that, I'd say walk. Fresh air does you good and you simply get more of it if you're outside for a longer period of time.

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

I'm in and around Delft which has it's fair share of Grolsch bars and a giant clog in one of the main squares. I'll be fair though I haven't seen many tulips or windmills nearby.

The bikes do seem to have taken the Indian driver approach to life, if your fated to die then you will die so take any amount of crazy risks. Having said that I was cycling across a road, got halfway and saw a car slowing down so guessed he was stopping, carried on, got a prolonged horn burst and waved fist from the driver who then stopped at the lights. No idea what that was all about.

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

The check is in the mail.... I had to convert it from US dollars to that funny money you all use over there so its only worth about .02 cents.. I hope that is enough. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

Ahh you must be talking about this monopoly money they call Euros. No sir, I normally use pound sterling a real currency that isn't given to you every time you pass go.

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

Use a bike. I can tell you from personal experience that walking is very boring compared to biking and you'll much more likely continue biking for the fun of it. I started biking for exercise over 15 years ago and continue till today.

BTW, you can't equate distances for walking/cycling. It's better to equate times - 20 min of excercise is 20 min of exercise. They aren't the same; personally I think you get a better workout on a bike anyway and you can taylor your speed/regiment. Plus if you are a beginner you get to rest a little on the downhills (and walk the bike up hills if you are a wuss).

What I did in the beginning is pick a close destination. I'd bike to it and back using different routes to minimize monotony. Then I bought one of those bike "speedometers". The thing measures lots of things: current speed, trip time, max speed, trip distance, total distance, cadence (pedal rotations per minute), average speed. I then would be determined to better my avg speed (and thus trip time) on every single run. It didn't matter if I beat my old time by 1 second, the goal was to do it a little faster each time. When I could easily complete the run at a pretty high avg speed, I changed my destination to a place a little farther away. Also, keeping cadence high (by use of different gears) is a key to efficiency.

I was in a great place for this since if I went one way from my house, I'd start with a long hill end up coming home with a long downhill. If I went the other direction it was the opposite. I called the hill on that side "heartbreak hill" since it was a gruelling climb at the end of the run.

I couldn't have kept my interest in exercise if it was just walking.

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

I'm a walker, love to walk. I get a kick out of seeing the faces of friends when I tell them I walk to stores accross town (about a 5 mile walk round trip) and tell them it takes me a little less than an hour (plus the time spend wandering the store) They think I'm crazy. LoL.. this from friends that take their car to go 3 blocks to a corner store for milk.

I also ride a bicycle (which I named Harley) which is a CCM 10 Speed. The bike actually broke a few years back, and I don't really miss it. I really prefer walking. I great day for me is when I make the trip into Montreal and spend the day walking around town. from about 6am till 11pm. Yes I cover alot of ground, but it's great, simply wonderful.

Spring is here, the boots are stored and my walking shoes are back in business, Oh the joy.

So my vote is Walk, Biking will only keep your legs in shape. Walking will keep you in shape. Also, By walking every day, you'll find that you'll see many of the same people, and you will fast feel like a member of the morning local crowd.

nuf said,.. Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

P.S. Did I say I love to walk?

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

I think that on the basis of which is more exercise, there is no question that walking is the better choice. You get exercise by expending energy. The more energy you expend, the greater benefit to your body. The amount of work you are doing is the same in both instances, the distance you travel. A bike is a machine, and therfore by definition allows you to do the same amount of work expending less energy. Assuming you expend your energy at the same rate, which you control by the briskness of your pace either walking or pedaling, you will use less energy riding. It should be a fairly straightforward mathematical comparison.

However, which one is more enjoyable to you is an important consideration as that is the one you are more likely to continue doing as was previously stated.

But if you've got the extra time, enjoy walking, or just have enough determination to make yourself continue regardless, then walking would give you more exercise.

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

I have to disagree that walking is "the better choice". Yes, bikes are more efficient for getting from point A to point B, but they are comparable when you excercise for the same length of time. Your mathematical example is based on distance when it should be based on time. I suspect that a calculation based on time would show that you expend more energy per second on a bike. That's not to say that biking is "the beter choice" either. Either can be appropriate to an individual's needs. There are tons of articles on the subject.

You'll get your heart rate up higher on a bike and you will also exercise more muscles in your body. Cyclists also build up more coordination skills as a side benefit. You probably stand a higher chance to get injured, or more severely injured on a bike also.

Walking is better for low impact, low heart rate excercise. Older people, people with certain problems, etc. would find walking better. Doctors often prescribe walking because of its high benefit/risk.

They are simply different and it really depends on what you are looking for, your overall health, and what you enjoy enough to do regularly. (Cyclists will normally end up spending more money on bike stuff as time goes on; that may be a concern to people too.)

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

in the long run... the walking is better for your over all health. Grab a music player and enjoy the walk. Think about what you gotta do today and stuff like that. It is recommended that you walk 10000 steps a day. I walk on average 13000 steps a day. P.S. when you clasify walking as exercise you really gotta look at your life style and change it or you will pay down the road.

Low impact exercies are a good way to get back in shape and reduce stress.

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

No, you are wrong. The question was regarding which mode of transport would be better exercise given a fixed distance, ie his distance form home to work. So by definition the mathematical equation has to be based on distance. If he were asking which would be better exercise for a person with one hour a day to exercise, then you could do a time comparison.


I'm not sure this is correct, but it's not relevant for the reason I've explained above. Obviously a person walking at a leisurely pace will expend less energy per second then a person riding a bike briskly. But I suspect that given an equal pace on both you would expend an equal amount of energy at both per second. This is why I mentioned the pace as a factor in my previous post. But the rate of energy expended per second isn't relevant. If you expend 200 calories per minute riding and get there in 10 minutes you've expended 2000 colories. If you expend 5 calories per minute walking and take 20 minutes to get there you've expended the same 2000 calories. This is assuming your bicycle give you no mechanical advantage. But you do get a mechanical advantage on a bike because of the gear ratios. That's why you get more work out with the same energy input.

THis is true, but irrelevant to the paramaters of the original question which was which would be better exercise over a fixed distance.
This is all wrong except possibly the part about the coordination. Your heart rate and musculature gains are dependant on the effort you put into it and the resistance you get to that effort. Given an equal briskness of pace your heart rate should be the same regardless of whether you are walking or riding. Your muscle tone might actually be better walking since you don't have the previously mentioned mechanical benefit from the bike.

Bikes are wonderful exercise, but given the same amount of work effort they are no better exercise then walking. And given an equal travel distance, equal amount of work effort and unlimited time, walking is the better exercise. I stand by that. But they will get you farther faster. If transportation time is the deciding factor, or if you bore easily, biking is the way to go.

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

We've missed the steps between walking and biking - running and unicycles. Anyone wish to discuss?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

i like swimming... very good for the heart

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

Another advantage to walking,.. you have more time to enjoy the sights, and now that spring is here, summer is just around the corner. (by sights I mean female anatomy in various stages of dress.)

To prove my point, would you rather keep something nice in your sights for seconds or minutes?

I rest my case. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

And you've all missed the best exercise there is! Snowboarding! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif Snowboarding exercises your entire body, burns ~500 calories per hour, and toughens you (from all those 50-60 km/h crashes on the hill...).

Then again, it isn't really a mode of transportation, but that's a side issue. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

I stand corrected on the original problem statement of a given distance, not a given time.

I stand by my other statements as I have done minor testing on myself, and with doctor's advice. Under normal circumstances, my heart rate would always be higher during cycling than walking, given equivalent "pace". Leisurly cycling has creates heart rate than leisurly walking. I've checked my heart rate many times under different excercise conditions cycling is always greater than walking; again with other things being "equal".

It's not simply a matter of calories per distance per time. A bike can be a more efficient mode of transportation, BUT, you are also bringing along the wieght of the bike. Hills are harder going up and much easier going down. The point is that energy expenditiure is not linear. Far from it. It's actually very close to a cubic function. i.e. double the pace, and you need to expend approximately 8x the power (2^3 = 8). Also, faster speeds (bike vs walking) cause other factors to become significant, like wind resistance - which isn't linear either. I think wind resistance rises as the square of speed, but it's been too long since I looked at that stuff.

Regarding using muscles. Cycling requires much more effort from arms, back, abdomen, even neck muscles than walking. The leg muscles used in walking and cycling are different. It matters if the cyclist is using "clips" which allows him to pedal on the upstroke.

I don't mean to turn this into a big discussion, and like I have said there are NUMEROUS articles by various "experts" on this very subject; each with its own conclusions. [not to mention throwing in jogging/running, which is another whole can of worms]

All I'm saying is that they are very different and each provides different advantages and disadvantages for people. Each could be the best or totally wrong for a given individual.

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

Pogo sticks? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Slick, I'm not an expert. I was just looking from a strictly mechanical effort vs result basis. If there are other factors I'm missing I stand corrected.

It's fun to argue about something other than politics or the exsistance of life in the universe every now and then. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

I don't consider this an argument. I do consider you a valuable member of the community and I respect your points of view. You have corrected me on many occasions and I honestly do thank you for that. One of my pet peeves is seeing "junk-science" being propagated and I sure do my best to ensure that I don't create any more of it.

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

I'd bike. You get there faster, its fun, and its easy on the knees. They say walking is low impact, but biking is no impact, unless you crash :p

I'd imagine if you push yourself on the bike instead of leasurely pedaling to your destination you will get a much better workout than walking or jogging. You can keep pushing as hard as you can stand on a bike, since they have lots of gears so you never wind out. Legs have one gear, once you reach top speed pushing harder isn't going to do anything but wear you out faster.

Re: Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking
 

Well, all I can offer is from experience. I started walking 20 minutes every evening, increased after a week to half hr, within 2 weeks 45 minutes. Now when I say walk, its not the averagae walk of a person. It is a brisk walk, not running, or over exertion, just a brisk walk set at your pace. The results = in 2.6 months I lost 45 lbs, breathed better, was in better shape, felt better then I did for long time. Downside was, after the 2.6 months I tore my Achilles Tendon, had surgery, became a couch potato for a year and put the d... weight back on from lack of excercise. Along with the walking, I also watched my carbs, didn't eliminate them, just cut back, still hade my chocolate, chips, and pop. So IMHO, I'd go for the walk. Bikes are good as well, what you might consider, changing off, 1 day walk, 2nd day bike and see how it goes, This was 2 yrs ago, my foot is healed and I have started my walking again, when the weather isn't snowing out.. my 2 cents

Oh the walking had nothing to do with the Achilles Tendon, that happend when I was running after some people at work