Ridiculously OT: Bike vs Walking

[Atrocities]

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.

[El_Phil]

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.

[Slick]

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.

[David E. Gervais]

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!

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

[geoschmo]

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.

[Slick]

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.)

[geoschmo]

Slick said:
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.

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.

Slick said: I suspect that a calculation based on time would show that you expend more energy per second on a bike.

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.

Slick said:
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.

THis is true, but irrelevant to the paramaters of the original question which was which would be better exercise over a fixed distance.

Slick said:
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.

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.