# Running vs mountain biking



## Karrack (Mar 8, 2010)

I know there's a thread on the Passion side but I'm wondering how to balance biking with running. Is it possible and if so, what kind of schedule are you all using? I think that running is better for weight loss but harder on the body than biking. 

Here's what I'm doing now. Running on Sunday Tuesday and Thursday. Either walking or riding on the off days. Running seems to be hell on the body but I chalk it up to the time running and not the act itself. 

Can it be done and how? Thanks.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Karrack said:


> I think that running is better for weight loss but harder on the body than biking.


That's just not true. You can burn just as many calories on a bike as compared to running in the same amount of time. Just depends on how hard you push doing either. 
Yes, running is much harder on the body as compared to mtbing or cycling. Well, at least until you crash, LOL

What's your goal? Stats?

Do you like running, mtbing, road riding, exercise?


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

theMeat said:


> That's just not true. You can burn just as many calories on a bike as compared to running in the same amount of time. Just depends on how hard you push doing either.
> Yes, running is much harder on the body as compared to mtbing or cycling. Well, at least until you crash, LOL
> 
> What's your goal? Stats?
> ...


Running burns calories at a higher rate because you are supporting your entire body weight.


----------



## wanderingdave (Jul 29, 2011)

I usually try and fit my runs when the weather is less than ideal. That way there's never an excuse to not get some exercise. I can't blame poor trail conditions for not getting some blood flowing.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

It all depends on how fast you are running vs how fast you are cycling. It also depends on the terrain. As a general rule, as you increase your intensity, the amount of calories you burn is going to increase, so the faster you finish the ride or run, the more calories you are going to burn. Its important to remember that distance isn't a factor here, as time spent exerting energy is. All things being equal, I don't think a 45 minute run will burn more energy then a 45 minute bike ride at the same intensity. I do think, however, that over a 10 year period, a biker is going to have less wear and tear to his or her body than a runner, particularely in the knees and hips.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

^^^ I agree. Though I think on my normal ride I'd push my Max HR higher than running. At the end of the day it's a different cardio exercise difficult to compare. On my local trail I used to see this one guy all the time he's biking on his HT, he'd climbed on up on his HT and running down the trail. The first few times I asked him if he's alright may be his bike's broken but he said nope all good, not enough work out on the climb I guess.


----------



## aubzobot (Jun 5, 2011)

I find myself running four days of the week, weight lifting for two other days and then I just bike for recreation but it definitley adds to the workout. I suggest if you really wan to lose eight biking find an uphill rouse or use a higher gear for a longer duration.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

Also, for weight loss, it can help to ride a lower end, heavy bike with a steel frame, with larger front chainrings. I know, sounds kind of counter intuitive, but ultimately, this is going to make you work harder over the duration of the ride, therefore burning more calories. Two years ago, I lost 25 pounds, and I did it drinking Mountain Dew and beer almost every day. My secret? Along with the beer and Mountain Dew, I went on a 90 minute biker ride just about every day on a Trek 820 steel frame with 48-38-28 front chainrings. It also helped that I started to eat smaller portions too, but I think most of it was the long bike rides, in which I burned about 900 calories per ride on!


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Yep agreed, it's about amount of energy used, and level of intensity = calories burned. Sorry AZ, just the way it is. Sure if you're a mtber, and you decide to go for a run, it's gonna kick your ass. but that's a conditioning issue and nothing else. 

There's alot more to do with it and that's why I asked "karrack" what his goals & stats were and what he likes to do for cardio. Lotsa people have a narrow view of weight lose and just think, oh, I have to run this long to burn this amount of calories or whatever. To see better, more steady progress, and just simply make it easier and more enjoyable while achieving your goals, other things should/must be considered. Like ways to speed your metab, diet, rest, maybe wieght/body weight training, and the timing of them all. Loosing weight doesn't have to be painful, or boring. It's more about making better and smarter choices, and small changes, a little at a time to have lasting steady progress, and less pain. 

So Karrack, sorry if that doesn't answer your question, or if it's more info than you care to read, but if you'd like to have more info on reaching some fitness/diet goals, hit me up. I can at least recommend when you should ride in that schedule you laid out if I knew some of your stats and a little more detail of that routine.

Pete, "theMeat"


----------



## Karrack (Mar 8, 2010)

Good stuff here. theMeat, I enjoy mountain biking more than running. What I'm running now is usually a longer run (for me that means 45mins to an hour) twice a week then I try to run a 5k at a good clip on the other day. On the weight days, it's anywhere from 45mins to an hour. On days I don't run, it's a walk in the woods for an hour and 15 mins to an hour and a half or a mountain bike ride of at least an hour. I'd like to lose my gut. I've went from 200lbs to 165lbs now but the gut is still lingering and I seem to have stopped losing, just maintaining.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Running does burn calories at a higher rate,

Cycling Vs. Running Calories | LIVESTRONG.COM

Now I'm going for a bike ride.


----------



## JayClaire (Aug 16, 2011)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Running does burn calories at a higher rate,
> 
> I agree


----------



## Lotus78 (Jul 22, 2009)

I run twice a week 3 to 5 miles then an 8 to 10+. I try to mix it up with a trail run and a road run. I ride twice a week and also swim twice a week. I lost 30lb in a year down to 185, to lose the next 10 I had to cut back on Beer to one or two a week. Now I just maintain at 175.


----------



## Adam_B. (Apr 7, 2011)

I typically run 5 days a week and sometimes ride 5 days a week as well. I usually run in the mornings and ride in the late afternoon/evenings. Running and riding compliment eachother well I think. If you are worried about the impact of running wearing on your body you should check out minimalist running. The form required for minimalist running greatly reduces the amount of impact since you eliminate the heal strike from your steps.


----------



## bcwall (Jul 4, 2011)

I dont know about calories burned but I can hold my heart rate higher while biking than running. A hour bike ride that covered 11 miles the other day my garmin said my average heart rate was 137 with a max of 169. A 30 min run that covered 3 miles my average heart rate was also 137 with a max of 158. So i was able to hold my heart rate at 137 30 min longer biking because after 3 miles of running I could go no futher. 

I try to run/jog once or twice a week depending on how my legs feel. I also do a push weight workout once a week and a pull weight workout once a week. Then bike the rest of the days. I just dusted the old cannondale off after years of being in storage so i enjoy riding more than running. Plus my knees are not good and biking is alot easier on them.


----------



## DStaley (Jun 25, 2011)

I run and ride on the same day a lot. I'm lucky enough to be able to trail run and ride right out my front door in Golden Gate Canyon SP (CO Front Range). I'll get in the car with my dog, drive down to the other end of the park, leave it there, run back with my dog to wear him out, and then ride my bike back to my car. There are a number of possible combinations/lengths available, it's like heaven right here in CO! 

Of course, I'm about to undergo surgery to clean out both hip joints and will be down for several months, so I don't know if the double sessions contributed to my injuries or not...


----------



## drjay9051 (Dec 6, 2006)

Granted at a given speed you may burn more running than biking, at a given speedand same distance. Other considerations: can your knees take the pounding of a run? Hey swimming is a non weight bearing exercise but for many is preferable to running or biking. Also, bike uphill at slower speed vs run for the same distance over flats, biking will burn more. Its a simple matter of energy output.

Do what works for you. I cannot run or really jog as my knees are toast but biking rocks for me. 
If I was 50pounds lighter maybe the knees could take it.

In the end switch up and do what works it may be run/bike/rest/run or bike/rest/swim/bike. Get the idea. I think we tend to over think this.

BTW: check out Concept 2 rower to really mix it up.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Running does burn calories at a higher rate,
> 
> Cycling Vs. Running Calories | LIVESTRONG.COM
> 
> Now I'm going for a bike ride.


I see your point as well you should see mine, and the first paragraph on the link you posted also says that. With running your intensity level can be higher is all. So for anything longer than 20 min or so for most, that's just not doable.


----------



## roadie scum (Jan 21, 2011)

theMeat said:


> I see your point as well you should see mine, and the first paragraph on the link you posted also says that. With running your intensity level can be higher is all. So for anything longer than 20 min or so for most, that's just not doable.


If you cannot run in zone 3 for more than 20 mins. you need to run more. Hell, 20 mins. in zone 4 should be doable with just a litttle training, and yes running burns a lot more calories at the same heart rate, you have to support your whole body weight unlike on the bike. If you really want a work out start doing "bricks". Go do your normal training ride and then do a run @ 5K pace.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Karrack said:


> Good stuff here. theMeat, I enjoy mountain biking more than running. What I'm running now is usually a longer run (for me that means 45mins to an hour) twice a week then I try to run a 5k at a good clip on the other day. On the weight days, it's anywhere from 45mins to an hour. On days I don't run, it's a walk in the woods for an hour and 15 mins to an hour and a half or a mountain bike ride of at least an hour. I'd like to lose my gut. I've went from 200lbs to 165lbs now but the gut is still lingering and I seem to have stopped losing, just maintaining.


Cool beans. Sounds like you're on a good routine and have seen some progress. 
First off, I'll say that when it comes to weight lose or fitness gains, everything works but looses it's effectiveness after some time. And what works well for some, may not work as well for others. Making improvements a little at a time is the best route to take so you can ride each wave of progress until you stop seeing good progress than make more or better changes. Another reason to make single or small changes at a time is to help dial in and find what works best for you. I'll throw out some ideas and tricks.
Diet.....
Of coarse eating less than you use will have a weight lose result, but whether your loosing muscle of fat has everything to do with timing and quality of food, aside from your genes. About 2 1/2 - 3 hours after you eat you start to go into "fasting" mode. Fasting mode is a double edged sword because althou you start to run off body stores like fat, if you go far enough into it, your body will also start to consume muscle for energy, and if/when you let your body go into fasting, your body WILL store some of your next meal, as a precaution for the next time.
-----Eat smaller meals 5 - 6x a day to stay out of fasting mode. This is also better for someone who's looking to see fitness gains because it'll help you avoid bonking. Eating more often will also speed up your metab. It might take your body a few weeks to realise it has a constant food supply, and that it doesn't have to store for times of need, but it works. 
-----Cycle carbs. Carbs are needed, especially if you exercise, so it's bad to avoid them for many reasons, but cycling them has great results for many. To cycle, either eat carbs for 2-3 days and low to none for 3-5, or have carbs A.M. and low to none P.M. Or find a happy medium some where in between the 2 of these. You might see your energy level fall off when you start to cycle carbs, but after a few weeks it should mostly return.
----Some diet notes. Try to avoid all simple carbs. The only time simple carbs are good is right after exercise, and that's also a good time to reward yourself.
Eat about an hour before and with in an hour after any exercise to see the best fitness gains. 4:1 carb protein ratio is believed to be best for most, but don't get crazy and a ball park estimate is just fine.

Exercise....
I'm a firm believer that if it's fun, you're more likely to do it, and the more you do it, the easier it becomes and in turn becomes more fun. The first 20-30 min of exercise you're running on food energy. After that you'll start to burn stores. Exercise long enough and you'll strart to burn muscle so keep intense workouts under an hour and less intense under 2. That, combined with not eating often enough is why many marathoners are skrawny but still have a belly pooch. 
---When you wake up in the morn you're in a fasting mode, so doing some cardio before you eat is a good trick to start cutting into stores as soon as you start. Make sure to eat right after to get out of fasting.
---Another best time to do cardio is after a hard weight training workout for the same reason. Your food energy has been used up so you start burning stores right away. 
---You can plateau from over training, so take a week off, as well as from your body getting used to the challenges, so step up your routine. You're the only one who can tell which one it is.

A few more things I think worth mentioning...
----Muscle mass speeds your metab, So the more you have, the faster your metab, even at rest. Having more will also make you feel and look better and in turn can help keep you motivated.
----Try to look at cardio as a way to build stamina (stamina will help most with their weight training also) and a way to speed metab, and not as a way to burn calories, and diet as a way to control calories. Althou it does burn calories, it's kinda crazy to think that cardio is the way to go when it only takes a few minutes to eat, and an hour or two to burn that same amount. The speeding up of your metab is where most of that good is going anyway, Unless you're under 17y.o. and your metab is already racing.
----The places your body likes to store fat are the first and last to see the changes. So when you get yourself down to a low enough body fat, that'll come off to. It's just the most stubborn. 
----Fasting (not eating food) for 24 hours, 1 or 2x a month is a good way to shock your body and get it to wonder what's coming next. It is espeacially usefull before you make a change to your diet or breaking out of a diet plateau as you described. I can't go to bed hungry so I'll do no food after dinner 1 night, till dinner the next.
----Our bodies are designed to store some fat, some more than others, and to only have as much muscle as you need for the tasks you ask it to do. Again, some more than others. When you hit a diet or exercise plateau, the best way to break it is with change or shock to the system. 
----Oh, and taking a week off every 2 months or so, from all exercise and diet restrictions is a good way to avoid plateaus, and even thou you won't see any progress that week, or may even take a step back, you'll shock your system AND come back stronger and fully recovered and that's better for the long term.

Hope this helps, Good Luck
Pete, "theMeat"


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

roadie scum said:


> If you cannot run in zone 3 for more than 20 mins. you need to run more. Hell, 20 mins. in zone 4 should be doable with just a litttle training, and yes running burns a lot more calories at the same heart rate, you have to support your whole body weight unlike on the bike. If you really want a work out start doing "bricks". Go do your normal training ride and then do a run @ 5K pace.


I spoke nothing of zones and my point is just that you can reach a higher intensity level with runnig so....I have no idea what your point is. You don't have to beleive me, just check out a calorie burning calculator and compare. 
If I really wanna start working out? LOL


----------



## madaxc (Aug 6, 2011)

Obviously it depends on the type of running/biking... The nature of mountain biking is similar to interval training, which is supposedly fantastic for shedding fat.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

theMeat said:


> I spoke nothing of zones and my point is just that you can reach a higher intensity level with runnig so....I have no idea what your point is. You don't have to beleive me, just check out a calorie burning calculator and compare.
> If I really wanna start working out? LOL


No, you can not reach a higher intensity level by running. You cannot exceed your maximum H.R. by simply changing your form of exertion.


----------



## roadie scum (Jan 21, 2011)

theMeat said:


> I spoke nothing of zones and my point is just that you can reach a higher intensity level with runnig so....I have no idea what your point is. You don't have to beleive me, just check out a calorie burning calculator and compare.
> If I really wanna start working out? LOL


You spoke of things you have little grasp of, reach a higher intensity with running BWWAAhAAA. Go ahead quote your computer, I already know the results.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

AZ.MTNS said:


> No, you can not reach a higher intensity level by running. You cannot exceed your maximum H.R. by simply changing your form of exertion.


I agree:thumbsup: It takes a lot to punish yourself pass the max HR by running unless someone is shooting at you

Mtbing it comes easier because of steepness and the urgency to clean the climb as usual I hit my limit at the bottom and gone pass it soon after that and I just hang on.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Don't know how this turned into a beat up on theMeat thread. Intensity can be measured by, but is not just a matter of HR. At least as i understand it. When you ride your bike and you stop pedaling to go down a hill, or take a breather you're still riding your bike. But when you stop running you just stop running so it's a little hard to compare. I'll take it a step further, based on your own logic or way of thinking that running uses more of your body than cycling, which is argueable but I agree with. If you're sitting down doing hand crunches with a gripper with all your might, can that be as intense as squats or deadlifts with all your might? No matter how you wanna compare it?

Of coarse you can't exceed your max HR for long, no matter what you're doing.

Dissect my post and twist it up all you want, it doesn't change the facts, just maybe some opinions. And I really don't see how this helps or has anything to do with the original topic so whatever. You guys are right, and roadie scum, the way you chose to respond to people on here makes you seem like a special person. As in a special needs person. BWahaha.


----------



## DavidR1 (Jul 7, 2008)

theMeat said:


> I see your point as well you should see mine, and the first paragraph on the link you posted also says that. With running your intensity level can be higher is all. So for anything longer than 20 min or so for most, that's just not doable.


Running burns more calories because there is never a break. Your constantly having to put in effort to move, while you can coast from time to time on a bike. Just the way it is and it is impossible to duplicate this intensity on a bike.

As to the OP's original question, it seems like your already putting the time in. If you have reached a plataeu in achieving your goals, you need to increase your intensity. It is easy in running, get yourself a GPS watch and set goals of decreasing your mile times. On a bike, pick up the pace and set similar goals.:thumbsup:


----------



## Haligan78 (Jun 13, 2011)

It's no question at all for me because I have a bad knee and a bad ankle so the high impact of running is a no go.
Not to mention that running just flat out sucks. I would rather be fat and lazy than torture myself running. Biking is fun and enjoyable which makes me willing to participate.


----------



## Noobi-Wan Kenobi (Dec 24, 2007)

Lots of good points made in this thread. Some I've found to be spot on and some I don't agree with (let me qualify that by saying we are all a little different, so what works for one may not work to the same degree with someone else).

And I'm not picking on *theMeat*, but what he says seems like "over analyzing" to me. Again, he does make some good points.

I think *AZ* and *roadie* are correct in saying running burns calories at a higher rate.

To the OP.......I've been running since the 70's and MTBing the last 5 years. Here's what I found (from my running) to be the most important:
First, listen to your body.......If your body tells you something hurts then slow
down or stop and try that level of exertion or that activity the next time. To make
progress we have to push our bodies, but you don't want to do any serious 
damage.

Second, be consistent......For me, anything less than three times a week was not
even maintaining a given level of fitness. I found that every other day was the best
for my body. It seemed to like a day in between for recovery. Some people will 
do better with more days but I think at least three days a week would be a 
good minimum for most.

Now, to get to your question on the balance between biking and running. (Sorry to be so long winded) 
I think the schedule you've outlined above is a good one, It's just about the same that I'm doing at the present time.


----------



## getagrip (Mar 26, 2008)

There is something that is not quite right with this comparison, at least when you look at total calories consumed running vs biking and the logic that is used to justify a specific conclusion. 

It has been stated here that "running burns more calories than biking". Well, perhaps, but that is going to depend on how fast you are running vs biking.

If you run at a given pace for a given distance and time, you are going to burn a specific amount of calories. The same holds true for biking.

Based on how far you run and how fast you run, you may or may NOT burn more than a biker will going at at a specific speed over a specific distance. You can compute the figures either way and you can manipulate the numbers - at times, you are going to burn more calories running, and at times, you are going to burn more calories biking. This is a mathematical fact. It all depends on how hard you are working and how much energy you are using, whether you are running or biking.

Some people have reasoned that running burns more calories because you are using more parts of your body running. Well, maybe, but there is also a problem with that logic...

It could be said that when riding your bike, you are using your muscles more efficiently, therefore using less energy when you pedal vs when you run, therefore burning fewer calories. Well, that might be true, but, when you are pedaling on a bike, you are moving your legs faster than when you are running, therefore burning a high amount of calories. 

It is true that you are moving your arms and legs while running. No one is going to debate that. It could also be argued that you are using your chest and back musles as well. But this is also true while biking. Depending on the type of riding you do, you aren't necessarily just pedaling with your legs - you are also using muscles to balance the bike laterally, which I would think would expend more energy when balancing your body while running. You are also using the muscles in your chest, hands, wrists, arms, and back when biking.

Technically speaking, you get more weight resistance from your bike than from when you run. Ever notice how "buff" you look from biking after the ride? Its because you are building muscle when you ride. When you build muscle, you are expending energy. The more muscle you have on your body, the more energy you are going to expend, even when resting. This means that AFTER the ride, your body has more potential to burn calories in its resting state because you build bigger muscles when riding. Yes, if you have more muscle on your body, your body will burn more calories when resting. Its a medical fact.

You also have to take into consideration the weight of the bike and the rest of the components. You have to look at the width of the tires and the amount of friction they produce. You have to look at the size of the cranks and the chainrings - there are going to be cases when you are going to burn many more calories on one kind of bike vs another.

Now, I haven't sat down and run all of the numbers, and you would probably have to be a professional mathematician to even begin to do side by side comparisons. There are so many variables to consider. Probably way more than you think, and way more than I've cited above.

In my case, I know for a fact that I burn more calories when biking then running. That is because I have difficulty running at a sustained rate for more than a minute or two. However, I can bike for hours at a sustained rate, so for me, and most people, its a no brainer...we are going to burn more calories by biking simply because we can bike for much longer than we can run or jog. Some of us can only run for 3 minutes before we have to stop, but we can bike for an hour or two without stopping. Which one burns more calories? 3 minutes of biking or 2 hours of riding? Do the math.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Holy [email protected], I simply said



theMeat said:


> You can burn just as many calories on a bike as compared to running in the same amount of time. Just depends on how hard you push doing either.


and it turns into I'm with that guy, and I agree, and you're wrong, and here's the link to prove it, and he's over analyzing things BS. Sure you can burn off more calories running your ass off as compared to cycling but really, ? If you guys wanna bicker over how long, at what intesity, HR%, whatever, have at it.

If after reading my long drawn out post above you think I'm over analyzing. it was shared by me, from what I'v learned, with someone who was looking for advice, to maximize efforts by doing things wisely. Once you understand and follow some of those guidlines, it makes reaching diet/fitness goals easier and simpler, not over analyzed. It may seem like a bit much for someone who just follows the simple or usual less calories taken in than burned way of thinking but again, once you know how to and do it, it can make a big difference for someone who might be swiming, in some ways, against the current.

Oh, and before anyone feels the need to tell me that less calories eaten than burned does or doesn't work, please spare me.

Good Luck Karrack, and welcome to MTBR, LOL


----------



## DavidR1 (Jul 7, 2008)

theMeat said:


> Oh, and before anyone feels the need to tell me that less calories eaten than burned doesn't work, please spare me.


Dude, less calories eaten then burned doesn't work!! Your just over annalyzing it.


----------



## screaminz2002 (Aug 5, 2011)

This thread was actually pretty good in parts. Realistically weight loss always starts in the kitchen. You can lose weight by being a couch potato. You may not be in good shape but just losing weight can be done by eating less calories then you burn. When you combine eating on a caloric deficit with exercise you get healthy. It lowers bad cholesterol, raises good, sweats out sodium, increases metabolism etc etc. Anything you do as far as exercise will not help you to loose weight faster. Reducing calories does that and you can do it to the point of being unhealthy. The key is to balance out eating correctly to support the amount of exercise you want to do while still loosing weight. Running or biking will simply be a matter of calories burned/hr and one may take slightly longer to achieve then the other. As your body grows accustomed to one or the other it will gradually be harder and harder to burn calories. (you get in shape doing this exercise). So you either do it longer or you mix in some other forms of exercise. HIIT, running, lifting weights, anything thats new and will get the blood pumping faster. For instance my first mtb ride buned 1200 calories in 45 minutes. It was all road. My last all road was 24 miles in 1:40:00 and I burned 1300. This was 6 weeks apart. I can also burn 1200 in 30 minutes if hiit workouts. None of this matter though if I consume 3k calories a day.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Good post screamin, except for the fact that enough exercise will speed your metab, especially for those with a slower metab, allowing you to eat more or lose more.
And new type training doesn't get the blood pumping more, it forces your body to get stronger in the ways it needs to to meet the demands you put on it with that exercise. HIT type, or new type is best for stimulating your central nerves system more or differently for spurring on new growth and/or fitness gains. 
And, timing and type/content of food/drink has alot to do with what type of weight you lose/gain, and the state of your health, cholesterol, whatever.

And of coarse YMMV


----------



## dirtdonk (Jan 31, 2004)

theMeat said:


> Don't know how this turned into a beat up on theMeat thread. .


Duh, because everyone wants to beat the meat. LOL. somebody had to say it.

(Originally Posted by theMeat 
You can burn just as many calories on a bike as compared to running in the same amount of time. Just depends on how hard you push doing either.)

I have to agree. Logic might not belong here but it seems logical to me that if I have a 160 average bpm heartrate for 60 minutes it doesn't matter how I'm doing it. I'm burning the same number of calories. Different workouts are going to work different muscles in different ways but the calories burned should be the same. It should also be noted that exercising at a lower heartrate is supposed to focus on burning fat better.

FYI. Long term studies are showing that running is not as hard on the body as one would think. These are studies are using long distance runners. It shows no more hip or knee wear and tear than normal use.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

LOL, very funny and so true


----------



## DavidR1 (Jul 7, 2008)

screaminz2002 said:


> For instance my first mtb ride buned 1200 calories in 45 minutes. It was all road. My last all road was 24 miles in 1:40:00 and I burned 1300. This was 6 weeks apart. I can also burn 1200 in 30 minutes if hiit workouts. None of this matter though if I consume 3k calories a day.


How are you determining how many calories you burned with each workout?


----------



## Noclutch (Jun 20, 2010)

Here is my perspective FWIW. I'm a long time runner 25+ years, and a 1 yr MTBer though I do at a very high intensity coming from 25+ year offroad motorcycle background. These are my last run and ride recordings. My running is off these days about a minute per mile as I've been riding so much and dealing with some IT issues that seem to have resolved. But also my last ride was slowed and lowered in intensity as the trails were too wet to really push it fast or get on the technical trails sections. So these might be comparable workouts intensity wise for me. Both recorded on a Garmin 305, corrected ride mileage/avg speed against a cyclocomputer. I know HR based calorie computation is overestimated, but still points out the differences. A very hard ride might record 3k calories, and a long for me run of 5 miles might only say 400 calories as a guess. After the ride I'd be wiped out for the day but just a little tight. After the run the legs would be saying "no mas" and feeling abused, but I'd have the energy to do more things otherwise.

*Ride* last thrusday-
Time: 01:23:02 
Distance: 16.70 mi 
Elevation Gain: 109 ft 
Calories: 1,872 C

Timing
Time: 01:23:02 
Moving Time: 01:21:11 
Elapsed Time: 01:23:03 
Avg Speed: 12.1 mph 
Avg Moving Speed: 11.0 mph 
Max Speed: 19.8 mph 
Avg Pace: 04:57 min/mi 
Avg Moving Pace: 05:26 min/mi 
Best Pace: 03:02 min/mi

SpeedPaceElevation
Elevation Gain: 109 ft 
Elevation Loss: 113 ft 
Min Elevation: 52 ft 
Max Elevation: 99 ft

Heart RateAvg HR: 132 bpm 
Max HR: 151 bpm 
Avg HR: 75 % of Max 
Max HR: 86 % of Max 
Avg HR: 2.3 z 
Max HR: 3.9 z

*Run* saturday morning-

Time: 00:25:37 
Distance: 2.95 mi 
Elevation Gain: 26 ft 
Calories: 204 C

Timing
Time: 00:25:37 
Moving Time: 00:25:34 
Elapsed Time: 00:25:38 
Avg Speed: 6.9 mph 
Avg Moving Speed: 6.9 mph 
Max Speed: 8.2 mph 
Avg Pace: 08:40 min/mi 
Avg Moving Pace: 08:39 min/mi 
Best Pace: 07:18 min/mi

SpeedPaceElevation
Elevation Gain: 26 ft 
Elevation Loss: 72 ft 
Min Elevation: 81 ft 
Max Elevation: 131 ft

Heart RateAvg HR: 141 bpm 
Max HR: 152 bpm 
Avg HR: 81 % of Max 
Max HR: 87 % of Max 
Avg HR: 3.0 z 
Max HR: 4.0 z 
-

So for me anyways, MTB is WAY better for me and my body, though it is more time consumptive it also allows much better total calorie burns as well as keeping my iffy knee happier.


----------



## DavidR1 (Jul 7, 2008)

Noclutch said:


> Both recorded on a Garmin 305, corrected ride mileage/avg speed against a cyclocomputer. I know HR based calorie computation is overestimated, but still points out the differences. r.


Yeah, these Garmin calorie counters are notoriously wrong. I would say this is highlighted in your example by looking at your average HR. It is higher in your running, meaning that your burning more calories. But the "calorie counter" shows significantly less calories burned (when you split it up to similar time). This makes no sense.

But, like you said, biking works for you as it doesn't bother your ailing knee like running.


----------



## Noclutch (Jun 20, 2010)

Another way to look at it would be on a per hour comparison. Say the Garmin is 50% off- it is always relative comparing the two activities though. So for me on these two moderate intensity events-
Ride- 936 cal/ 1.38 hrs= 678cal/hr ; but a ride of one hour would be totally unsatisfying
Run- 102 cal/.42 hrs = 242 cal/hr ; but a run of an hour would be torture


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

David there's just too many varibles to know for sure, and HR is a good comparison but isn't the tell all. Thanx Noclutch for the effort and info.


----------



## ridetheridge (Mar 7, 2009)

Burning calories is all about the amount of work your doing. Work, if we can take a quick trip back to Physics 101, is Force x Distance. Time is not a factor, but I'll explain that one later on. 

So, the heavier the weight pushed or pulled over the longer the distance the more work and hence the more calories burned. Do that in a short amount of time and you have a lot of power (FxD / Time).

Ride a mountain bike up a long hill with a pack on, and guess what ? Your burning calories. 
The hills force you to carry the vector (physics again) part of your weight (and your bike) against gravity. The steeper the hill, the more of the total weight you are pushing against gravity. This is also why going dowhill is easier. 

Now.. let's talk the time element... 
The mechanical advantage of a bike going down hill is significant compared to the human body. In other words, if it takes 10 minutes to climb a hill on a bike, it may take 2 minutes to go down. Running might take 13 minutes to go up and possibly 8 minutes to go down. 
So in 12 minutes the biker has spent 83% of the time going up. In contrast, the runner has spent 62% of his 21 minutes, going up. 

The runner and the biker head out to each run or bike their own hilly course for 1 hour. 
After 1 hour, the biker spent 49 minutes going up hills. (60 Min x .83)
The runner has spent 37 minutes going up hills. 

If the mountain biker is carrying more weight (bike and pack) and spending more time going up hills, he's burning a lot of calories. 

Conversely, if one is riding in an easy gear on relatively flat ground while the runner is running up hills with a pack on, the runner is burning way more calories. 

So.. it depends


----------



## chemitaa (Dec 12, 2008)

running is more heavy.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

Running strains my leg joints, particularly my knees, and can sometimes damage ligaments (sprained ankles from running at night) and is generally not as fun or memorable, unless I run by a lot of hotties in minimalist tight clothing. Running on the road exposes me things I can't really control, such as dogs, cars, solicitors, heat, noise, and air pollution, among other things. It simply feels like training.

Mountain biking doesn't seem to strain anything in particular, instead gives me more of a full body workout, but can sometimes damage ligaments and bones in event of a crash. It's generally more fun, has tons of memorable moments, but you're not likely to pass by many hotties, unless you're not a straight guy. Biking exposes you to some wildlife, though if you learn enough about them, there's nothing really to fear. You might run into more insects, but they tend to hang around certain spots. You might run into more poison ivy/oak/sumac, but you learn well what they look like.

Often times, I like to combine hobbies. I can use running to meet girls or stop at a nearby shop or do some soliciting of my own, or scout out real estate or cars for sale. I can use mountain biking to do some nature photography, bouldering, rock climbing, camping, playing in waterfalls, etc.

Might sound like mtn biking is the clear winner to most, but I think the biggest downside to mtn biking is how expensive it can get, if you really get into it.

Why limit yourself? Try to enjoy everything. The more things you dabble in, the more cultured you are. That said, I don't care about calories as much as I care about having fun and allowing my inner self to come out (being myself) and not trying to build an image of what I want myself to be.


----------



## Cordell15 (Aug 23, 2011)

Nice sharing.
I think running is harder on your joints, especially the knees. I personally think bike riding is much more fun. I think both are good for a cardiovascular workout.


----------



## Mattlikestobike (Nov 1, 2010)

i find that you can loose more weight with a bike, because you are able to go longer in distance and time without feeling as tired and cramped up as running.

Also, after running, my knees feel weird.


----------



## screaminz2002 (Aug 5, 2011)

DavidR1 said:


> How are you determining how many calories you burned with each workout?


Sorry haven't got back in here. I use a heart rate monitor. It can also be calculated using a generic formula per hour. No it's not exact but it gets you in the ball park. Using a site like Live Strong MyPlate can help you keep track of this stuff without a HRM. In my case I eat 1470 calories a day while trying to loose 2lbs a week. 300 of these calories a day are exercise calories that I don't track. I track exercise from 500 and up giving myself a buffer of 200.

Really I don't sweat the scale. I end up drinking on the weekends and blowing my deficit anyway but I have managed to loose 20lbs in 14 weeks. Aside from this I am feeling great and can participate in sports or activities without being the guy panting for breath. In my mind that's the most important part and the weight will eventually follow. Besides this is a lifestyle change for me and not a fad diet. The bicycle has been a miracle and I am embarrassed to say my 2k treadmill is being used to hang my biking clothes on when I get back in from riding on my 200.00 used trek. It's probably closer to a 3k treadmill if you add in my doctor bills for my knees. :madman:


----------



## stock r (Jun 20, 2008)

Just wanted to say it's definitely possible to mix running and biking. Some of us throw some swimming in there too  

Best is when you combine all 3 sports and race them in the same event...


----------



## Spartan14 (Aug 17, 2010)

Mattlikestobike said:


> i find that you can loose more weight with a bike, because you are able to go longer in distance and time without feeling as tired and cramped up as running.
> 
> Also, after running, my knees feel weird.


I personally from an USMC background think you can't run regularly and stay fat. But my Mom on the other hand has noticed she can keep her heart rate up higher and for longer on her Mountain Bike than she can running. Of course she is in the process of losing weight

I've been subscribed to this topic since day 1. Funny how the OP basically asked how to combine the 2 into his schedule and it turned into a war of bikers vs runners. Personally I just ran 5 miles pushing my son in his stroller and I'll be going for a ride on some single track in a few hours. Tomorrow morning I'll be lifting weights for 45 minutes. I'm a Bodybuilding Triathlete. I know you can't be both but I try. My bodybuilding, running, biking, and swimming all suffer from combining them. Then again it's cool being a rare breed. I'm not as big as I could be and I'm not as fast as I could be but I hold my own. I actually got into Tri's thinking that all my upper body strength would be great for swimming, WRONG. MUSCLE DON'T FLOAT. It doesn't help much with running or biking either for that matter.

OP take up training mornings and evenings and you should have plenty time to bike and run during the week,


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

dirtdonk said:


> Duh, because everyone wants to beat the meat. LOL. somebody had to say it.
> 
> (Originally Posted by theMeat
> You can burn just as many calories on a bike as compared to running in the same amount of time. Just depends on how hard you push doing either.)
> ...


You and theMeat are way off here. Heart rate does not have a linear relationship to calories burned during exercise. While it's true that in general, the higher your heart rate, the more calories you are burning, the total energy output is dependent upon many other factors, such as efficiency of muscle groups (fitness), the muscle groups used, and environmental factors. Many types of exercise utilize anaerobic muscle function.

Additionally, different muscle groups have different caloric requirements to function, which, again, does not directly correlate to oxygen requirement (heart rate.) Which is why as you increase your fitness, your heart rate will decrease but your caloric output will increase.

Also, exercising at a lower heart rate does *not* "focus on burning fat better."


----------



## Spartan14 (Aug 17, 2010)

Jtmartino. I second that, its a common misconception that a higher heart rate in one activity equals more calories burned than a lower HR in another. Just Google a calorie calculator and notice how different activities have different calories per hour. Tons of good articles on this very topic. 

Personally I use my Garmin's Heart Rate Monitor to help me determine how hard I'm pushing myself. Unless I'm up above 175 I know I'm just jogging or taking it easy on whatever terrain I'm facing. Pretty helpful setting a low limit on HR during training to keep me pushing myself. 

I have to say the tone of the above argument doesn't strike me as all constructive. Seems like some people are taking it personal and proclaiming biking or running as superior.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Um, JtMartino 


theMeat said:


> there's just too many varibles to know for sure, and HR is a good comparison but isn't the tell all.


It's funny to me that after spelling out some of the most cutting edge and up to date info around that instead of getting any, not 1 thanx from anyone saying, hey, I didn't know that, or hey, that sounds like it's worth a try, I get a neg rep for defending myself against roadie scum. Whom i don't care if he thinks he's right or I'm wrong or if he doesn't agree with my post, that's cool, you can lead a horse to water and all that, but it's just the way he chose to respond that erked me. It's people with obvious ego, or whatever problems like that, IMO that keeps alot of knoweledgeable people from posting because they don't wanna get caught up in the BS and personal attacks. It just makes this site less.

This thread reminds me of J.H. school, and a lesson I learned there, which I neglected to use here until now, which is...if I don't find the info entertaining, or funny in some way, or directly related to the topic, I'm just not gonna take a turn at responding.

Think we should all, myself included, give ourselves a round of applause for making a new member, the thread starter, and fellow mtber feel so welcome that he's come back and read this thread and chose not to respond, Hmm, wonder why?


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

theMeat said:


> Um, JtMartino


Sorry about missing your later post; I was just responding to your "LOL, very funny and so true" statement.

The bottom line is that on average, at normal levels of intensity, running burns more calories than cycling. This has been studied extensively, specifically in relation to watts outputted in relation to VO2 levels. A common metric is the Metabolic Equivalent of Tasks, which is used to gauge different activities against each other.

Here's a nice summary list of METS (the higher then number, the more calories burned):

Healthful Life:Archives

Here's a more comprehensive list:

http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/docs/documents_compendium.pdf

from the CDC's website:

One MET is defined as the energy expenditure for sitting quietly, which, for the average adult, approximates 3.5 ml of oxygen uptake per kilogram of body weight per minute (1.2 kcal/min for a 70-kg individual). For example, a 2-MET activity requires two times the metabolic energy expenditure of sitting quietly.

Values listed are for an average person, defined here as 70 kilograms or 154 pounds. The activity intensity levels portrayed in this chart are most applicable to men aged 30 to 50 years and women aged 20 to 40 years. For older individuals, the classification of activity intensity might be higher. For example, what is moderate intensity to a 40-year-old man might be vigorous for a man in his 70s. Intensity is a subjective classification.


----------



## Markapuu (Feb 24, 2011)

Spartan14 said:


> Personally I just ran 5 miles pushing my son in his stroller and I'll be going for a ride on some single track in a few hours. Tomorrow morning I'll be lifting weights for 45 minutes. I'm a Bodybuilding Triathlete. I know you can't be both but I try. My bodybuilding, running, biking, and swimming all suffer from combining them. Then again it's cool being a rare breed. I'm not as big as I could be and I'm not as fast as I could be but I hold my own. I actually got into Tri's thinking that all my upper body strength would be great for swimming, WRONG. MUSCLE DON'T FLOAT. It doesn't help much with running or biking either for that matter.
> 
> OP take up training mornings and evenings and you should have plenty time to bike and run during the week,


My regimen seem similar to yours, but I can't swim worth a damn (I can paddle on a bodyboard or surfboard pretty well though lol). My goal is strength and endurance, but they seem to compromise each other to a degree. I can't lift anything super-heavy, and at the same time I'm not that fast of a runner. However, I can run faster and longer than most people benching 315lbs, and lift more than most people running a sub 18minute 5k so that's good enough for me. One time I ran 18 miles training for a marathon, and then hit the gym and did 225lbs for 12 reps the next day.

I agree, morning and evening workouts will help out. I've started waking up at 5am to either run or lift, so that I have time to do something else after work.


----------



## Noobi-Wan Kenobi (Dec 24, 2007)

theMeat said:


> Um, JtMartino
> 
> It's funny to me that after spelling out some of the most cutting edge and up to date info around that instead of getting any, not 1 thanx from anyone saying, hey, I didn't know that, or hey, that sounds like it's worth a try, I get a neg rep for defending myself against roadie scum. Whom i don't care if he thinks he's right or I'm wrong or if he doesn't agree with my post, that's cool, you can lead a horse to water and all that, but it's just the way he chose to respond that erked me. It's people with obvious ego, or whatever problems like that, IMO that keeps alot of knoweledgeable people from posting because they don't wanna get caught up in the BS and personal attacks. It just makes this site less.
> 
> ...


I nominate *theMeat* for the office of "Most Combative Poster" for this thread.

And I was going to make a joke about how long you've been out of J.H. school, but I won't. No need to fan the fires for you.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Hey JtMartino, seems like you've been at this for a while and have picked up some knoweledge along the way. Thanx for sharing, and the links I'll be sure to check out. 
It certainly has to work with your schedule but A tip I picked up from some of my triathlon and body building buds is,... to try and do cardio A.M., and lifting P.M. Just because you're more nourished later in the day and that can be a benifit to pushing your limits. It has for me.


----------



## screaminz2002 (Aug 5, 2011)

I think a lot of the info meat posted was spot on and the same information you would receive on most of the weight loss sites. The only thing I tried to do was condense some of what meat said while emphasizing the OP's original reason for asking the question which was: that he would loose weight faster by biking or running. The answer is neither. He would loose weight faster increasing his caloric deficit. 

You can break down exercise into formulas and be scientific precise in what you do. It is still a guess. The easiest way for 98% of the people on the planet to tell how many calories they burn is related to monitoring the heart rate. It gets close enough to count calories and try and reach a deficit. The second choice would be basing it off of the exercise by the number of minutes you did said exercise. I can't think of a single person I know that uses anything more complicated then those two to loose weight. If you want to be a body builder, professional athlete, weightlifter etc then it would be better to have a professional trainer that manages your workouts and meals based on more information then I care to go to school for.


----------



## Blueliner (Apr 5, 2010)

I do both running and biking; I found this from the OP funny:

"I think that running is better for weight loss but harder on the body than biking."

If you could have seen how beat up I was after this sundays ride, and another from earlier in the week, bruises on inside of both knees from crashes contacting the pedals and rocks (I hate rocks), shark bite from the contacting the chain ring, big scrapes on the front of my shins, and the outside of my arms from contacting branches and a few big sticks..all exposed areas have bug bites and rashes from some plant or another, and a serious case of seat rash from getting soaked...kinda like diaper rash..wife thinks I'm nuts. None of that happens running 5k around the neighborhood!

I find running tedious, but necessary..would not be able to do it without my Ipod spurring me on. Can't stand walking...a little too 'pedestrian' for me.

Blueliner


----------



## screaminz2002 (Aug 5, 2011)

Blueliner said:


> I do both running and biking; I found this from the OP funny:
> 
> "I think that running is better for weight loss but harder on the body than biking."
> 
> ...


Good stuff!! That means you burned more calories! 

MET..
I was referring to mets but couldn't remember the name. Most sites just calculate it for you. To my knowledge mets is just a scope to calculate calories when you do not have access to a heart rate monitor. There is no way to tell what "vigorous" is. It also does not take into account differences in metabolism due to gender, age, or body composition.

Lets just look at mountain biking. What you call biking and what I call biking are two totally different things even though we may have similar weight and composition. Under this formula we would both burn the same calories. I would think with a hrm that's calculated off of VRM, weight, age, sex, and zones we would be more accurate while both riding bikes.


----------



## T.Blazer (Aug 7, 2006)

No matter how fast you run you will burn the same amount of calories.
Once you start riding faster than about 20mph wind resistance starts to have an effect on how many calories per mile you will use. But below that riding does not burn as many per mile but many of us can ride for 15 miles and a good pace but not as many can run that same distance.
Oh and EF running.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

T.Blazer said:


> No matter how fast you run you will burn the same amount of calories.


Uh, no.


----------



## Markapuu (Feb 24, 2011)

T.Blazer said:


> No matter how fast you run you will burn the same amount of calories.


:shocked:

:lol:


----------



## T.Blazer (Aug 7, 2006)

Uh yes. Moving from one location to another requires a specific amount of energy, the speed with witch you move does not affect the amount of energy required.
The rate with which you use the energy changes, and this is where fitness come in, but not the amount of energy.


----------



## Spartan14 (Aug 17, 2010)

Wow this thread is always good for 1 more laugh. Running pushing my son and dog may not burn any calories at all I'm just not sure anymore. haha


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

T.Blazer said:


> No matter how fast you run you will burn the same amount of calories.


You may want to recheck your source on that one.


----------



## Spartan14 (Aug 17, 2010)

Ok, I do remember being taught that for a given distance the calories burnt would be the same. If I slowly walk a mile taking 20 minutes vs burning more calories per minute by running it in 5 minutes flat. All this calorie stuff is various commonly accepted theories anyways. That's why you have some people biking at a intensity level of 0 for an hour trying to burn fat and others hammering it for 20 minutes. Then the theory grows because some believe the additional calories burned by rebuilding the muscle surpass the calories burnt by exercising longer at a lower intensity.


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

T.Blazer said:


> Uh yes. Moving from one location to another requires a specific amount of energy, the speed with witch you move does not affect the amount of energy required.
> The rate with which you use the energy changes, and this is where fitness come in, but not the amount of energy.


This is what you call a "generally accepted fact". When you can't prove it yourself, you either have to choose to believe it or not to. I personally choose not to believe it. That theory doesn't take efficiency into consideration. What kind of pace do you decide to go when you want to go a super long distance without needing to refuel? If you believe your theory, then any speed is fine. There's tons of variables and outright stating exaggerated terms only makes it more unbelievable. Formulas used to calculate calories burned are meant to be simple estimates.

One of the many sources that prints crap like this: Aerobic Exercises - AskMen

Possibly a source that may change your mind regarding this topic: How Many Calories Are You Really Burning? | From Runner's World


----------



## Spartan14 (Aug 17, 2010)

Varaxis said:


> Possibly a source that may change your mind regarding this topic: How Many Calories Are You Really Burning? | From Runner's World


Good article thanks for sharing.


----------



## bclagge (Aug 31, 2009)

theMeat said:


> It's funny to me that after spelling out some of the most cutting edge and up to date info around that instead of getting any, not 1 thanx from anyone saying, hey, I didn't know that, or hey, that sounds like it's worth a try, I get a neg rep for defending myself against roadie scum. Whom i don't care if he thinks he's right or I'm wrong or if he doesn't agree with my post, that's cool, you can lead a horse to water and all that, but it's just the way he chose to respond that erked me. It's people with obvious ego, or whatever problems like that, IMO that keeps alot of knoweledgeable people from posting because they don't wanna get caught up in the BS and personal attacks. It just makes this site less.
> 
> This thread reminds me of J.H. school, and a lesson I learned there, which I neglected to use here until now, which is...if I don't find the info entertaining, or funny in some way, or directly related to the topic, I'm just not gonna take a turn at responding.
> 
> Think we should all, myself included, give ourselves a round of applause for making a new member, the thread starter, and fellow mtber feel so welcome that he's come back and read this thread and chose not to respond, Hmm, wonder why?


I always enjoy reading your posts theMeat. You always present your case in an intelligent fashion, logical and articulate. I also happen to agree with you most of the time. But it seems a waste of page space to post with a "+1" or "I agree with theMeat!" I'm sure hundreds of people read threads and never make a post or add rep to someone, but rest assured I and I'm sure others appreciate you sharing your knowledge and experience.



Blueliner said:


> Can't stand walking...a little too 'pedestrian' for me.
> 
> Blueliner


Best post of the day - you win!



T.Blazer said:


> Uh yes. Moving from one location to another requires a specific amount of energy, the speed with witch you move does not affect the amount of energy required.
> The rate with which you use the energy changes, and this is where fitness come in, but not the amount of energy.


I have to reiterate what Varaxis said here - you're not taking into account efficiency (or any other variables for that matter). No one has perfect form, so you drive your body weight up with each step - myself more than pro runners I'm sure. If you take smaller steps when running slow then you're driving your weight up more times overall than if you ran faster with bigger steps. Just one example of many I could conjure up that would change, at least to some degree, the results of the equation.


----------



## bui (Mar 16, 2007)

It's generally accepted that Work= Energy, ie it takes one unit of energy to perform one unit of work.

With that in mind,

W= force x distance
Since W=E,

E= F x d

And since F=mass x acceleration,

E= mad (Which describes some of you right now...chill out. Stress only contributes to your atherosclerotic risk....and before you start bragging about how healthy you are, fatty streaks are found in almost all populations and ages. No one is safe. But I digress).

What was that? E= mad. ASSuming mass is constant (ok weight weenies, you sweat some of your mass off during intense workouts, but it's negligible) and distance is the same, the only variable is a, acceleration. a= change in velocity/time...following that train of thought, greater acceleration will require more energy, and vice versa. So sprinting will require more energy (greater acceleration) than keeping a steady pace (no acceleration).


----------



## bclagge (Aug 31, 2009)

bui said:


> (ok weight weenies, you sweat some of your mass off during intense workouts, but it's negligible)


I drink a lot when I work out, so I generally wind up about a pound heavier after lifting weights (I weight myself before AND after, why not), although I don't drink when running. I drink a ton of water when biking, although I also sweat a lot in the FL heat, so who knows on that one?


----------



## SporkfromKFC (Nov 18, 2008)

bui said:


> It's generally accepted that Work= Energy, ie it takes one unit of energy to perform one unit of work(...)
> 
> (...)So sprinting will require more energy (greater acceleration) than keeping a steady pace (no acceleration).


Correct. But the threadjack was in regards to cycling vs running in terms of which burns more calories. The simple answer has been stated, it depends how hard (speed) you do each and what your mass is. A bicycle uses several machines to give the rider a mechanical advantage (wheels that roll, gearing, etc) that a runner does not posses. Based on the simple physics above, the curve work/acceleration will simply be longer on a bicycle than on foot.

The curves will vary based on temperature, incline, surface, weight, altitude, air resistance and other factors, but they will always be a shorter and longer version of the same curve given similar circumstances.

You're welcome, y'all are all stupid, except Bui, he's smart.


----------



## Noobi-Wan Kenobi (Dec 24, 2007)

So, *theMeat* gave me a neg. rep and commented "Useless BS that just degrades the site. "theMeat".

I guess trying humor to get him to "chill" a little didn't work. Oh well.


----------



## Noobi-Wan Kenobi (Dec 24, 2007)

Just got another neg. rep from someone that didn't own up to it with the comment "Being a whiny tattletell. HTFU".


----------



## Mattlikestobike (Nov 1, 2010)

Come on guys, whats the point of fighting here, we are on a forum, that shares the same interests, Biking!


----------



## bui (Mar 16, 2007)

That was me. How do I put a name on it? 

Damn! My rep just went from 5 to 0. Who do I tell about this obvious clerical error?


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

T.Blazer said:


> Uh yes. Moving from one location to another requires a specific amount of energy, the speed with witch you move does not affect the amount of energy required.
> The rate with which you use the energy changes, and this is where fitness come in, but not the amount of energy.


This is not true even in a perfect physics system, as explained by bui, without even addressing physiological and external variables. And the real world is far from a perfect system. It's very clear to anyone who has exercised that the work - energy relationship in the human body is not linear. As humans increase their speed, the energy required to maintain that speed increases exponentially, approaching the limit that is max speed (or max energy output.) Additionally, as speed increases, air resistance increases, which becomes a significant factor versus the power exerted by a cyclist.

I could draw you a graph, but it's not really worth the energy (zing.) Just think about it, and I'm sure you'll realize that walking a mile and sprinting a mile require very different amounts of energy.


----------



## Noobi-Wan Kenobi (Dec 24, 2007)

Wow, there's a whole flock of neg. reps coming my way. Whoever did this third one didn't own up to it either. Comment was "You're a ******. Post that one as well."


----------



## slacker666 (Aug 16, 2011)

The simple physics of work & energy apply to moving a mass through 1 dimension. Running isn't 1 dimensional. You move horizontally over many strides and also vertically in each stride. 

Walking concentrates the energy expended more in the horizontal dimension than running does. Ever see somebody's hair bounce when they walk? 

Since running & walking move the same mass over the same horizontal distance, and running involves more vertical movement, it has to take more energy over a given horizontal distance. That is true setting aside any issues of energy expenditure as muscles fatigue, which they do faster in running.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Hahahaha, neg rep made me laugh out loud did you.



Noobi-Wan Kenobi said:


> I nominate *theMeat* for the office of "Most Combative Poster" for this thread.
> 
> And I was going to make a joke about how long you've been out of J.H. school, but I won't. No need to fan the fires for you.


Ironic this is. Pot call the kettle black must you.

Sorry but if someone called me out and made me realise this, and had the balls to leave their name, I'd have pos rep'd em. 
Spiteful are you? Do you really care that much about rep? Whatever,
Think C3PO for his whinning, or Darth Vader for his trying to get people over to the darkside would be more fitting names for you. Just sayin'
Thanx to everyone else who actually added something useful


----------



## Noobi-Wan Kenobi (Dec 24, 2007)

theMeat said:


> Hahahaha, neg rep made me laugh out loud did you.
> 
> Ironic this is. Pot call the kettle black must you.
> 
> ...


LOL. You really do think you know it all.


----------



## theMeat (Jan 5, 2010)

Think I know it all I do not, but responding to my post I knew you must. But please, judge all you want. maybe you'll realise at some point that it just takes away from this site.

Done now, hope for the sake of everyone, you are too.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

A great MTBer who's name is lost to the ages once said "running is for prey".


----------



## Noobi-Wan Kenobi (Dec 24, 2007)

theMeat said:


> But please, judge all you want. maybe you'll realise at some point that it just takes away from this site.


Don't you realize that every thread that you post in where you get upset and combative with anyone that seems(in your mind) to disagree with your posts takes away from this site?


----------



## dirtdonk (Jan 31, 2004)

jtmartino said:


> The bottom line is that on average, at normal levels of intensity, running burns more calories than cycling. This has been studied extensively, specifically in relation to watts outputted in relation to VO2 levels. A common metric is the Metabolic Equivalent of Tasks, which is used to gauge different activities against each other.
> 
> Here's a nice summary list of METS (the higher then number, the more calories burned):
> 
> ...


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

dirtdonk said:


> If you look closely at the healthful life archives article you recommend you'll see this. "MET values for each activity are approximations; there may be considerable individual variation". You might want to read this article Calorie Burning


Yeah, the values have to be approximations or averages because everyone is different. But they are average trends that have been studied clinically, and are applicable to this discussion.

Your article is good, and basically reinforces everything I've stated already (including the trends seen in MET values.) Thanks for sharing, it's definitely worth a read!


----------



## dirtdonk (Jan 31, 2004)

jtmartino said:


> Yeah, the values have to be approximations or averages because everyone is different. But they are average trends that have been studied clinically, and are applicable to this discussion.
> 
> Your article is good, and basically reinforces everything I've stated already (including the trends seen in MET values.) Thanks for sharing, it's definitely worth a read!


Interesting. I would say we read different articles.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

dirtdonk said:


> Interesting. I would say we read different articles.


What do you mean? I see no contradictions. Care to elaborate?


----------



## T.Blazer (Aug 7, 2006)

This is fun, its to bad i type so slow. and speel so poorly.
But here we go.
Yes there are some variables but the difference is negligable when we ware talking about energy used to travel a specific distance at different speeds of run.
Someone said you have to lift your body up that uses energy you would not use when walking. I wont argue that but will follow by saying it then falls the exact same distance so you then make up for that used energy by coasting down to the next step.
You also take much fewer steps when running so the faster you run the more efficient you become.
Wind resistance? realy. realy? How fast do you thingk you can run?
Not a person here can probly run faster than 15mph, or a 4 min mile. 
To an elite level runner yess it may make a difference in seconds over a great distance or thousanths of a sec over 100 meters.
How many times is your heart going to beat while walking a mile?
About 1600 (80 bpm x 20min)
How bout durring a 6 minute mile?
lets say 160 bpm X 6= hmmmmmmmm 960
Wow thats almopst half as many beats, 
see running faster uses less energy because you are not living as long.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

T.Blazer said:


> This is fun, its to bad i type so slow. and speel so poorly.
> But here we go.
> Yes there are some variables but the difference is negligable when we ware talking about energy used to travel a specific distance at different speeds of run.
> Someone said you have to lift your body up that uses energy you would not use when walking. I wont argue that but will follow by saying it then falls the exact same distance so you then make up for that used energy by coasting down to the next step.
> ...


I'm sorry I'm slow and I'm no expert, you are saying at a distance of say 5 miles going faster and slower without wind drag the energy spent would be about the same? Because going faster while you spend more energy you'd get there faster? Thanks.


----------



## T.Blazer (Aug 7, 2006)

"*I'm sorry I'm slow and I'm no expert, you are saying at a distance of say 5 miles going faster and slower without wind drag the energy spent would be about the same? Because going faster while you spend more energy you'd get there faster? Thanks.*"

Say again , over

What I am trying to say is people cannot run fast enough for the difference in wind resistance to amount to a significant amount of drag.
I think thats what you are asking about.
Acceleration doesnt make much of a difference because of the amount of acceleration done.
How long does someone accelerate to reach thier running speed? 4-5 steps.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

T.Blazer said:


> "*I'm sorry I'm slow and I'm no expert, you are saying at a distance of say 5 miles going faster and slower without wind drag the energy spent would be about the same? Because going faster while you spend more energy you'd get there faster? Thanks.*"
> 
> Say again , over
> 
> ...


Your logic is flawed, and based upon simple Physics 1 exercises from high school. There are so many other factors going into the system (such as vertical displacement - read slacker666's post) that to put it in your terms is far too simple.

That doesn't even begin to address the different physiological requirements between walking and running. Running requires more energy, and people are not perfect machines. The end.


----------



## SporkfromKFC (Nov 18, 2008)

Did anyone even bother to ask the O.P. what his goal is? Running to lose weight, running to get faster at running and cycling? The answer to that would allow an expert to properly answer that question without getting into whether or not you can burn more cals on a bike.

Also, amount of calories burned is less relevant in terms of cycling vs. running. Human physiology adapts based on the types of stresses it regularly encounters, it's called adaptive response. Lift big weights? You'll get bigger. Ride a bike fast? Your legs will get bigger (because you rotate a lever with your legs). Run distances a lot? You'll lose body mass (because you push your mass up and forward). To put it another way:

Person A runs X distance and burns 10,000 calories in a month. Person B cycles X distance and burns 10,000 calories in the same month. They start at the same weight and body fat and they eat the exact same number of calories/fat/etc. Person A loses more weight.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

T.Blazer said:


> "*I'm sorry I'm slow and I'm no expert, you are saying at a distance of say 5 miles going faster and slower without wind drag the energy spent would be about the same? Because going faster while you spend more energy you'd get there faster? Thanks.*"
> 
> Say again , over
> 
> ...


 This gotta be a running thing or biking on flat/paved surface because it's not the same on dirt at least not to me. I burn quite a bit more calories on a steep trail than my normal one in less distance according to my Edge 305. Similar goes to my home trail I burn about 30-50% more calories on the same distance when I'm out riding in the group who just like to drop the hammer. If your logic applied the number should be the same or close, it's not.:thumbsup:


----------



## dirtdonk (Jan 31, 2004)

jtmartino said:


> . The end.


No point in elaborating.


----------



## T.Blazer (Aug 7, 2006)

How does a garmin know how much energy you are useing?


----------



## bui (Mar 16, 2007)

T.Blazer said:


> This is fun, its to bad i type so slow. and speel so poorly.
> But here we go.
> Yes there are some variables but the difference is negligable when we ware talking about energy used to travel a specific distance at different speeds of run.
> Someone said you have to lift your body up that uses energy you would not use when walking. I wont argue that but will follow by saying it then falls the exact same distance so you then make up for that used energy by coasting down to the next step.
> ...


Yeah, but the extra energy it takes to increase contractility and HR to bring cardiac output up to your body's demands are much higher in running when compared to walking.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

T.Blazer said:


> How does a garmin know how much energy you are useing?


It doesn't, it is an estimate.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

T.Blazer said:


> How does a garmin know how much energy you are useing?


Uh! are you mocking me? What kind of shop owner does know what Garmin Edge 305 does even if you don't sell them.

It does similar thing the online calorie counter, only a bit more accurate because of the HRM and grade is also calculated.:thumbsup:


----------



## slacker666 (Aug 16, 2011)

Now we're way down in the rabbit hole, several turns past the OP's questions, but...



T.Blazer said:


> Someone said you have to lift your body up that uses energy you would not use when walking. I wont argue that but will follow by saying it then falls the exact same distance so you then make up for that used energy by coasting down to the next step.


Work done in one dimension (vertical) is independent of, and does not contribute to, work done in a perpendicular dimension (horizontal). You know the old trick about shooting a bullet perfectly straight, vs. dropping a bullet from the same height as the barrel -- which hits the ground first? They hit at the same time. (OK actually they don't, but there the air resistance is significant, unlike with running, and that creates the difference.) All the gun's work to propel the bullet horizontally doesn't affect the work gravity does horizontally.

So yeah, in running, you expend energy to move your body vertically, and gravity brings you back down without expending energy. The energy expenditure is basically only on the upward half of the vertical movement. But gravity only un-does the vertical movement, it doesn't help with the horizontal.

In walking, you don't even expend that (a tiny bit, but much less).

The vertical movement in running gives no compensating gain in efficiency over walking.


----------



## Rockband (May 8, 2006)

Karrack said:


> I think that running is better for weight loss but harder on the body than biking.


I would run almost daily at home. Decided to go on a long bicycle tour. My knee gave me major **** and I had to stop.

If you have good technique stick to dirt and don't run like a pansy i.e. heel stomping running is not that hard on the body. Bicycling with just as much or more knee flexion for some reason hurts my knees way more.

and to chime in on convoluted discussion, instead of arguing over some BS semantics you guys need to GET OUT AND RIDE, or run!


----------



## IndyHIFI (Jul 25, 2011)

Agree running is way harder on the body


----------



## IndyHIFI (Jul 25, 2011)

Check


----------



## T.Blazer (Aug 7, 2006)

To BUI- but your blood is slightly thinner due to higher O2 content and higher temp. And we are talking about double the beats durring walking.
Slacker-dont forget the horizontal movement while falling, that is the free movement i was talking about.
If you move between to points it is going to take the same output whether you go up then down or down then up. You use more energy in the first half, the upward movement but then less on the downward side.


----------



## SporkfromKFC (Nov 18, 2008)

T.Blazer said:


> To BUI- but your blood is slightly thinner due to higher O2 content and higher temp. And we are talking about double the beats durring walking.
> Slacker-dont forget the horizontal movement while falling, that is the free movement i was talking about.
> If you move between to points it is going to take the same output whether you go up then down or down then up. You use more energy in the first half, the upward movement but then less on the downward side.


You're all kinds of incorrect, bubba. 1st law of motion: a body stays at rest unless acted upon. Gravity is constantly acting to pull a body down. Air pressure is constantly acting to push against it in all directions. 2nd law: A body experiences acceleration or deceleration when acted upon by an unbalanced force. Gravity, air pressure and friction act against acceleration on Earth. Therefore all force applied to a body must be greater than the forces acting against it.

Because F=MA, each unit of acceleration working against gravity, air pressure and friction requires an exponential increase in F. That's why resistance increases with speed, and even at a running pace does so, the curve is simply much shorter because of the maximum F a body can produce.

There's no such thing as efficiency in terms of the length of step. The leg is a lever working to propel the body against the g, ap and friction. The longer the lever has to travel the more work is required to move it. The only efficiency to be gained is from changing the fulcrum point of the lever (not in your control). So now we know that each longer step (each step must be longer to increase A) requires exponentially more F. It also means that the force against increases to scale. Each "fall" results in a change of velocity that must be added to the F required for the next step.

To sum up: Each unit of acceleration requires an exponential increase in F. Each increase in F and A also increases the force against proportionally. Changes in direction (velocity) require more F as the force against increases and must be added to the F required for the next acceleration. So mechanical work increases exponentially as speed increases, no matter what the scale of the speed is. Result? Running is harder on your body, and therefore your body adjusts to reduce mass more than it would in cycling given equal external factors.

I'm glad we got to spend this time together.


----------



## jtmartino (Jul 31, 2008)

T.Blazer said:


> If you move between to points it is going to take the same output whether you go up then down or down then up. You use more energy in the first half, the upward movement but then less on the downward side.


Then we fight gravity again when landing, i.e. when the foot hits the ground. You spend a heck of a lot more energy running than walking.

Seriously, you still think you're right? You need to pull your head out, buddy.

Want a true research study? Well here you go:

Energy expenditure of walking and running: compari... [Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004] - PubMed result


----------



## T.Blazer (Aug 7, 2006)

To move the lever twice as far takes twice the force, but it is moved half as many times.


----------



## Peter Leo (Aug 23, 2011)

Anyway, riding a bicycle 20 miles at an average 15 miles per hour is equal to running 5.6 miles at any speed.


----------



## se7enine (May 22, 2011)

Swimming is better then both as far as weight loss w/ less impact. Hill sprints are great too and don't last as long but are twice as effective and safer. It all boils down to personal preference cause what works for some will not for others.


----------



## Spykr (Feb 17, 2011)

I run competitively, and have done so for the past 3 years. It is most definitely harder on the body, except when you fall. Then mountain biking is harder on the body. I love both sports, but mountain biking is much more "fun" than running. I don't think it's as rewarding physically or mentally, but much more fun. Significantly less fun when you crash though.
I run at least 6 times a week. When I'm in the middle of the season I often will run twice a day up to 5 times a week. I am on a bike at least 5 times a week riding to and from my educational institution. I try to get on the trails at least once a week, but it doesn't always work out. 

Running is a wonderful thing to get into, and I encourage you to do so. Mountain biking is also fantastic. Do both if you have the time!

There's a ratio that compares exercise of swimming, to running, to biking. It's not totally accurate, but good enough for general use. 1 mile of swimming is worth 4 miles of running, which is worth 16 miles of biking.


----------



## Natedogz (Apr 4, 2008)

theMeat said:


> That's just not true. You can burn just as many calories on a bike as compared to running in the same amount of time. Just depends on how hard you push doing either.
> Yes, running is much harder on the body as compared to mtbing or cycling. Well, at least until you crash, LOL
> 
> What's your goal? Stats?
> ...


Yes................................


----------

