[Closed] Calories burnt running vs cycling

The best way to work it out (because it's slightly different for everyone) is to work it out using an HRM. Having said all that, I found that I was surprised by the amount of calories I burned in say, doing a lap of Cwm Carn compared to the same time spent running - quite frightening how much more I burned on the cycle.

Then there's the paradox of when I'm running regularly I'm just that bit slimmer than when I'm cycling regularly.

Who knows?

Whats the frequency of the run/ cross train currently? Daily? And will the commute be daily?

I was led to believe that it wasn't so much the calories burnt during exercise that counted, but, the raise in your metabolic rate for the 24 hours after the exercise that really burnt the calories.
Chris

Whats the frequency of the run/ cross train currently? Daily? And will the commute be daily?

Monday to Friday with the odd extra day thrown in, commute would be the same.

Thats a good idea darcy I have a HRM, essentially I would like the commute to be equal to the running so I maintain my current weight.

But did you run around Cwm carn to compare? If you're road running surely it isn't really comparable even though you did specify time as the comparitive measure. For example I did a 70 min ride on my SS this afternoon. Mainly towpath with some other track and rest road. My HRM says that I used about 670 calories. I couldn't jog that route, nowhere near fit enough and don't run/jog. But I reckon that if I did a walk/jog of that route as quick as I could manage, which is what my ride was, I reckon I'd be up nearer to 1000cal.

Generally speaking running should be more calorie intensive as you are supporting all of your body weight and you don't get any "free" travel as you do on a bike on descents. Obviously climbing on a bike means that you are having to lift the bikes weight too but you have the mechanical advantage of gearing.

12miles on an mtb with slicks is probably in the 50 to 70 minute bracket depending how fit you are, tyre choice and route.

My feeling is that you would be close on calorific consumption, maybe slightly under. You can always find a couple extra miles when nights get lighter/weather improves on your way home for very little extra time cost. An extra 10 mins an evening. maybe one evening try to add an extra 30mins to make sure.

Ok, in that case....the bike will burn more....the variations given to by hills and resistance will vary the heart rate between a fat burn rate & followed by a cardio fitness rate (which is optimum fat burn as it helps the metabolic rate after the exercise has finished). Ideally you need to keep your heart rate in the fat burning zone, but with a some cardio heart rate zone, which will maintain the fitness - so to this end a HRM would be great! This optimum fat burn zone will depend on your current rest rate & your current higher rate? But if you get that right on the bike, more calories & probably fitness benefits will show!

Cycling is waaaaay more energy efficient than running. Therefore, you'll burn more calories running than cycling over the same distance.

No shit

I read in Mens Health that (on average)...

60 mins cycling = 30 mins running = 10 mins skipping

Cheers guys, it sounds like it will be similar which is good I shall use the HRM to judge though as don't want to become to fat on the build up to summer.

It really does depend.....10k on treadmill running, will be less resistance than a 12k ride on the road with hills etc....therefore less calories.

EDIT: talls - the above isn't in response to your post above, its in relation to the previous two posts.

60 mins cycling = 30 mins running = 10 mins skipping

I'd say thats load of rubbish if your good at skipping you barely even leave the ground.

Cycling is waaaaay more energy efficient than running. Therefore, you'll burn more calories running than cycling over the same distance.

ltheisinger - yeah I'm aware of that, I just want equal to my current work out, plus or minus 150kcal

Just saying what I read.

I skip when I train, 3 x 3 mins...and it does knacker me.

10 mins skipping

I'd be ****ing lucky if I managed 10 skips, let alone 10 minutes doing it. 😆

But did you run around Cwm carn to compare?

Funnily enough, no, I didn't. I must do sometime though, sounds like a grand idea, I'm sure the bikers won't mind 🙄

No worries mate - you'll surely achieve that! So go for it! The fact you're on STW probs means you prefer to ride anyway!! 😀

Funnily enough, no, I didn't. I must do sometime though, sounds like a grand idea, I'm sure the bikers won't mind

take your dog! 😀

take your dog!

I'll borrow one, and make sure to tie a plastic bag of shit on the apex of a switchback 😛

I skip when I train, 3 x 3 mins...and it does knacker me.

What are you doing in the intervals, I can't knacker myself skipping, good fun though and the ideal tool to pack in your holiday bag.

What are you doing in the intervals, I can't knacker myself skipping, good fun though and the ideal tool to pack in your holiday bag.

We do it to warm up before kickboxing, intervals are usually push-ups/crunches/leg raises/star jumps/squat thrusts

Even without the stuff in the middle, I just don't think I'm good enough at skipping. My concentration wanders after a couple of minutes..

[i]I don't agree - surely physics say you can't get something for nothing. Riding a bike means carrying an extra 30 lbs or so - the energy has to come from somewhere surely?[/i]

Go ride 60 miles, then try running it.

Ideally you need to keep your heart rate in the fat burning zone, but with a some cardio heart rate zone, which will maintain the fitness

Cycling is waaaaay more energy efficient than running. Therefore, you'll burn more calories running than cycling over the same distance.

What worries me though, is the only objective of the running/cross training or commuting by bike really weight control? Not convince I could keep up an exercise regime with solely that aim (though I suppose lots of women seem to manage it).

[i]Running requires the same amount of energy to run one mile at any speed; you burn 110 calories per mile. It doesn’t matter if you are a super fit athlete, or an out of shape beginner you will still burn the same number of calories per mile.

However, bike riding is affected by wind resistance so the faster you ride, the more energy you use, and the more calories you burn. You have to compare running and cycling at different cycling speeds.

This is according to fitness expert Dr. Edward Coyle of The University of Texas in Austin, who has worked with Lance Armstrong and other top athletes. He determined average values of oxygen consumption by cyclists to develop a table to estimate the approximate caloric equivalence between running and cycling.

He found that if you ride at 15 mph, you burn 31 calories per mile. This means if you ride 20 miles you burn 20 x 31 = 620 calories. Take the 620 calories and divide by 110 calories per mile for running and you get 5.63 miles of running to burn the same number of calories. Therefore, riding a bicycle 20 miles at an average 15 miles per hour is equal to running 5.6 miles at any speed.[/i]

from: [url]
http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/running-vs-cycling-burning-calories.html [/url]

aracer - Member

Ideally you need to keep your heart rate in the fat burning zone, but with a some cardio heart rate zone, which will maintain the fitness

The good old "fat burning zone" raises its ugly head yet again. You do know that the "fat burning zone" is really not a particularly useful thing at all if you're after losing (or maintaining) weight?

I am fully aware of that, but thanks for pointing it out....its a means to monitor the heart rate at a level in which the "text books" say will burn more calories, but of course this is a very subjective topic anyway, as it varies for everyone at what rate they will burn calories, but I just think 'talls' was looking for a 'close enough' comparison and whether he could continue to burn calories through cycling - which he will of course....any exercise is better than none, eh?

PS: I was 18 stone and now 13.5 - so I have burnt a few calories myself over the past 18mths, through mainly cycling... 😀

No, it won't.

I have no idea of the science but I am always hungrier after commuting 12miles each way than I am after I do a 12k run at 4 min/km

What worries me though, is the only objective of the running/cross training or commuting by bike really weight control? Not convince I could keep up an exercise regime with solely that aim (though I suppose lots of women seem to manage it).

ohhh you make it sound so negative, I get to eat bacon rolls and huge caesar salads and fish and chips and no nom nom.

According to [url= http://www.ahealthyme.com/MiniCalBurn.do ]this page[/url], an hour's run burns about 300 more calories - although of course that depends on the speed, a gentle trot is nothing like doing a TT...

Personally, a long hour and a half run leaves me feeling similarly tired to a 3 hour ride.

Running and cycling burn roughly the same calories for the same time period if you cycle three times faster than you run i.e If I run 8 miles in an hour and ride 24 miles in another hour I will burn roughly the same calories. I disagree that if you run at any speed you burn the same ammount of calories, dispite it coming from a fitness expert, the physics don't add up. I assume what the blog is hinting at is that your drag is neglidgable at 10mph and that people don't run more than that speed on average. The drag of a person running is simmilar to that of a person on a bike so Increasing your speed from 10mph to 15 mph running would have an increase in calories burnt if you are running or on a bike.

Iain

I am fully aware of that, but thanks for pointing it out....its a means to monitor the heart rate at a level in which the "text books" say will burn more calories

I disagree that if you run at any speed you burn the same ammount of calories

Over the same distance, same route - yes, same calories. Regardless of speed.

Over the same distance, same route - yes, same calories. Regardless of speed.

Well my basic O-level physics taught me
Work = Force x Distance.
It has nothing to do with speed.

So maybe my physics is rubbish - but until you can prove otherwise ....

Yes, but force depends on speed (eg. drag depends on speed^2). Your efficiency of running and cycling will also depend on speed (and also varies greatly between people). Don't believe the calories on your HRM - it doesn't have enough information and is just guessing!

Well my basic O-level physics taught me
Work = Force x Distance.

There's also some biology involved here

What? You mean like frog dissection?

pmsl.

Its all very complex and most ways of measuring calories burnt are little better than guesses.

Logic would say that if you exercise hard for an hour you burn the same amount of calories no matter if you're swimming cycling or running. Its the intensity x the time thats the crucial thing - not the distance or the speed. Of course measuring the intensity is also somewhat problematic.

Riding a bike means carrying an extra 30 lbs or so - the energy has to come from somewhere surely?

But you are not carrying it. Unlike running where your body is propelling your body forward and at least supporting its weight at all times.

Several factors determine calorie burning whilst running, terrain and speed being two. If you run faster you will burn more calories than if you run more slowly.

[i]I don't agree - surely physics say you can't get something for nothing. Riding a bike means carrying an extra 30 lbs or so - the energy has to come from somewhere surely?[/i]

This is why you are a graphics designer rather than a physicist 🙂

Okay so to summarize there is no specific answer. So I shall try it and if a become a fatty I shall return to the running.

Tango Man - Member
I was led to believe that it wasn't so much the calories burnt during exercise that counted, but, the raise in your metabolic rate for the 24 hours after the exercise that really burnt the calories.

for me short regular runs seem to promote weight loss while i have to really put in the hours on the bike

This is why you are a graphics designer rather than a physicist

But take it to an extreme - climbing an almost impossibly steep hill - is it easier to run up it or ride up it? I would say run it because with the weight of the bike it becomes impossible to ride it.

Or going down the same hill - it then becomes easier to ride it because gravity does almost all the work for you.

I just don't understand how it is possible to get *free* energy.

for me short regular runs seem to promote weight loss while i have to really put in the hours on the bike

A bit anecdotal but when I was training seriously (!) and running around 55 - 60 miles per week I introduced another 4 short (about 3 miles) early morning runs. I was already quite light (11st 4 and 6ft 1) I recall over the next few weeks I dropped below 11st and had to lower my mileage (I also ate anything that wasnt nailed down!)
My point is that early morning runs do have the effect of increasing your metabolic rate for several hours after. Which burns more fat.

I've done a couple of off-road duathlon events where I'm cycling & running on the same terrain
I always log them & my HRM says that I [roughly] burn twice as many calories - over time - running as I do cycling

Around 900 & 450/hr respectively
whether the actual figures are correct - I don't know but they are both measured with the same equipment on the same day

I think - based on my own observations - that running is not only better at keeping the weight off, but also that it is better for making you look slimmer as it has a much better effect at toning the abs. When I used to do a lot of cycling, but hardly any running, I always used to have a bit of a gut. Now I run more than bike, but overall do less and I don't think I have such an obvious gut - my legs are also more muscular and less like bits of string. Running (I think) is also good for developing strength (as opposed to fitness) and I can now muscle my way up stuff on the bike that I couldn't even when I had more bike fitness - ironic eh?

For overall body shape and injury avoidance it probably also helps to do some core strength stuff such as pilates.

But doing the commute is also making better use of your time, saving you money and putting less CO2 into the atmosphere.

My advice would be do the commute but try and keep up the odd run.

MF - running involves more effort as you are moving your legs more, bouncing your body up and down etc. You are right that on hills this is decreasingly significant. Remember you can freewheel without using any energy - you can do no such thing running.

So it's not "free" energy.

mastiles_fanylion - Member
But take it to an extreme - climbing an almost impossibly steep hill - is it easier to run up it or ride up it? I would say run it because with the weight of the bike it becomes impossible to ride it.

- i call it fmbs - fatmountainbikersyndrome all out effort uphill and coast downhill to the cafe your body is only too glad to grab and store whatever calories come along just in case you do it again

Fair enough. I prefer running nowadays anyway. Or walking with my iPod on very loud.

🙂

It will depend on your hr and how hard you work at the running/cycling, and how long you spend riding/running.

I'm running about 3 x a week at the moment, and road riding once a week. I use a Polar HRM for both. I burn around about 700 calories per hour running, and between 500 - 600 cycling because my HR is much higher when I run (for example, my 10mile run at the weekend was 179av for 1 hour 19mins and I burnt around 1,000 calories. My 50mile road ride (albeit a social one) was 50miles at an average of 154, and I burnt 2,000 in 4 hours)

Running will burn more as it uses upper body too and there's no coasting/free wheeling. I don't really want to lose weights, but since I've upped my running, I've lost 3kgs and look slimmer. Imo, running has also changed my body as well - my legs look leaner/thinner and i've lost muscle from my hamstrings.

I would agree with rightplacerighttime and keep up the odd run if you want to keep the weight off.

tails, its simple really. start your commute, eat as normal and see what happens. if you gain weight do some running too. job done.
personally i find commuting a good weight control measure done in cojunction with some longer mtb rides, some swimming and occasional spells of running. i only commute when i'm on day shifts (average twice a week of 8 miles each way) and its helps. the effect of 5 commutes a week might surprise you.

There's a lot more to this than the rate you burn calories. I have a Polar HRM that estimates calories based on heart rate, age, weight and a notional level of activity. I don't think it's accurate enough that I could compare my run to my friends, but it's good enough to compare today's run with yesterdays, or last nights run with Sunday's bike ride:

Biking on Sunday - 5 hours in the Peaks at about 800 calories per hour.
Running last night - 70 minutes at about 900 calories per hour.

I wouldn't worry about what the biking is, because if it's hilly then you'll work harder on the climbs, but get a rest on the flat; I've always found my rate of calorie burn doesn't vary much between a flat road bike ride and a hilly MTB ride.

Both those sessions above are very different, but I would say they both took a similar amount out of me as a measure of how able to exercise I feel the following day. I would always say to someone that is talking about exercise as a means to control weight that cycling is the solution, for a number of reasons:

1. If you're over-weight then running has a greater chance of causing injuries due to the impact with each stride.
2. If you have the time you can cycle for a lot longer for the same level of tiredness afterwards; the example above I burned massively more calories cycling than I did running and I'm about as tired today as I was yesterday.
3. Cycling doesn't feel as tough on your body, so you're more likely to enjoy it. If you enjoy it, you'll find more time for it, start looking forward to your exercise and then achieve far better results in your quest to manage your weight.

Running is handy because you can do it on pavements in the dark at night and straight out of your door, but that's really the only thing it has going for it, unless you're doing it because you enjoy it or you want to race.

Hope that helps.

If you just eat when you're hungry and stop eating when you're full up it won't matter how many calories you are burning.

Kev

That doesn't really work in the real world because your brain and stomach adapt themselves to their circumstance a fair bit.

For example, if you stuff yourself silly one night you can stretch your stomach to the point that you can eat more before you get full for a couple of days. If you do this, then eat until you're full your stomach can stay stretched and you'll get fat, all other things being equal.

Similarly, if you swap your three meals a day for 6 half the size, your stomach will contract a bit and your overall intake would fall, applying your rules, and you would then lose weight.

There seem are lot of reference to HRM's I dont really rate these for non elite athletes (flame suit on!)
I also suspect they are innacurate in estimating calorie usage. They only measure HR how do they calculate calories burned?

HRMs aren't much use unless you use them properly; that is use them all the time, upload data to a computer and learn what your heart does etc. Anything else is just information rather than useful information.

My HRM takes your heart rate, age, height and weight and you tell it how active you are. It uses all that to approximate your calorie useage. As I said, I don't think it's accurate enough that I could compare my numbers with someone elses, but it gives an accurate enough picture that I can compare one training session to another. I use the calories as a measure of weekly training volume, rather than a specific tool though.

the raise in your metabolic rate for the 24 hours after the exercise that really burnt the calories.

what tosh :o) That would be a disasterously bad and inefficient design, and the only way for it to work would be for your body temperature to rise to dissipate more heat. When you exercise, stored calories are converted into 20% mechanical energy and 80% heat (so you get hot), and you have to breathe harder to supply the oxygen required. When you stop exercising, you cool and down and stop breathing so hard as this process reduces to the background level

Eat cake of a known calorific value until you can't eat any more.

Go run/cycle whatever.

Come back, eat cake until you can't eat any more. Record amount of cake eaten & calculate amount of calories burnt.

Easy 😀

I read in Mens Health that (on average)...

60 mins cycling = 30 mins running = 10 mins skipping

I read in Mens Health that you should'nt eat fish or any other smelly food before oral sex!

I read in Mens Health that you should'nt eat fish or any other smelly food before oral sex!

I think pineapple is recommended for sweet spunk 🙂 However we are drifting off topic as the fish isn't landed yet...

what tosh :o) That would be a disasterously bad and inefficient design, and the only way for it to work would be for your body temperature to rise to dissipate more heat.

and I'm sure you were comprehensively proved wrong then

I am absolutely certain it hasn't been, it would be like a car giving 200mpg when driven and then consuming 5 gallons a night while turned off 🙂

and that there are ways for your body to use energy which don't just involve generating heat.

oh really ? The pixies eat it ?

"and that there are ways for your body to use energy which don't just involve generating heat."
oh really ? The pixies eat it ?

I am absolutely certain it hasn't been, it would be like a car giving 200mpg when driven and then consuming 5 gallons a night while turned off

Don't really know that much about this, but can spot a crap analogy from a mile off.

At what point during the night is the body "turned off"?

Also, does this have any bearing? - [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis ]ketosis[/url]

can spot a crap analogy from a mile off.

SFB - it is proven fact that if you exercise you raise your metablic rate for a significant period of time afterwards.

I know its a bit pot kettle and black but you really shouldn't assert your " common sense" arguments without something to back it up.

Also, while aerobic exercise is beneficial for cardiovascular reasons as well as direct calorie burning, recent studies seem to suggest that heavy endurance exercise also increases resting metabolism. However, it is unclear if light cardiovascular training has the same effect.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate ]referenced stuff from wiki[/url] follow the references for more

- it is proven fact that if you exercise you raise your metablic rate for a significant period of time afterwards

but without saying how much that is meaningless. After exercise, your body will be repairing muscle, digesting the food you couldn't eat while exercising etc, and it may be that it also leads to more 'active' resting where you move about more, and these things together may be a measurable amount above the nominal resting metabolic rate, and I'm suggesting a small amount, judging by the fact that a few minutes after I stop exercising I calm down and feel exactly the same as normal when I've not been exercising (apart from feeling hungrier), my heart slows to normal, my breathing is normal, so my estimate would for the things mentioned above would be say 20W (above a typical 100W resting metabolic rate) ie almost negligible compared to the hundreds of watts of exercise dissipation. If you know different, give me a number. As for pathways not involving heat, they are not metabolism but anabolism and fat/glycogen storage. Metabolism is measured purely by the amount of oxygen consumed as foodstuffs are broken down, generating mechanical power, heat and carbon dioxide (and urea in the case of proteins)