40 min walk v 10 min road ride…
oh, i should have said that calorie burning is not the aim of this, but makes for interesting comparison
thats a fair point jam bo, in the evening i guess i could take a long route back, in the morning though i’d probably go straight in
i dont know about any of you but sometimes i can take a while to get my bike stuff ready which would eat into the 40 mins anyway.
but now im just making excuses, i need to really get disaplined into cycling to work i guess if i want greater benefits
anyway BACK TO THE ORGINAL QUESTION DAMIT 😉Posted 9 years agogrizzlygusMember
I’m no expert, but surely walking can’t ever be described as an “aerobic” exercise ?
Well, not unless you’re a fat git and the strain of walking makes you huff & puff and pushes your HR right up.
Now jogging for 20 mins would definitely be better than a 10 mins bike ride imo.Posted 9 years agonickcSubscriber
but surely walking can’t ever be described as an “aerobic” exercise ?
Well, Aerobic just means with oxygen, hence Jogging is, sprinting hard isn’t. Any moderate exercise could be described as Aerobic really, so why not walking, maintain a good pace, swing your arms…better than nothing.Posted 9 years agomolgripsSubscriber
Walking would be better for your bike speed, certainly. 40 minutes if you walk really fast is enough to get you going for sure, and it’ll help you lose weight which, unless you are skin and bone to begin with, will make you a faster rider. 10 mins on a bike will do nothing for you at all – not even enough time to warm up. If you hammer, it’ll be just enough time for your legs to get full of lactate and then just sit there all day which will fatigue your muscles, if you go easy then you’re not doing anything.
Although, one coudl theorise that by filling your legs with lactate and letting it sit there, you could be increasing your lactate tolerance which would help with the riding.. hmm… When I was in Uni a lot of my riding was like this – short fast rides about town. I don’t know if it helped much, but I became good at sprinting hard from a cold start.Posted 9 years agoampthillSubscriber
It depends how fit you are. Brisk walking for about 40 mins a day dug me out of a very unfit hole. Its enough so that I can now go for a short but proper ride at the weekends.
But your probably fitter than me so will benefit less. But I would still rate brisk walking. Short commutes are worse than slightly longer ones for never feeling right
Maybe cycle on a Wednesday and take the long way homePosted 9 years agomolgripsSubscriber
I have often seen it quoted that a mile of cycling and a mile of walking uses the same calories.
Rubbish. If that were true, walking and cycling would be equally efficient in terms of energy in versus distance travelled. Consequently you’d be able to cover 150 miles in a day on foot, which is clearly nonsense.Posted 9 years agothisisnotaspoonMember
both will help you lose weight, the walking will burn off more calories probably.
Even 15 minutes to and form work every day, over a period of a week is still 2.5 hours riding. And you’ll probably notice the benifit of being fitter at the weekend because your body keeps its metabolism/glycogen stores up.Posted 9 years ago
The topic ‘40 min walk v 10 min road ride…’ is closed to new replies.