The FastDay Forum

I thought some of you might be interested in this: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/2 ... -run/?_r=0

My knees prefer that I cycle, can't disagree with that. Interesting article. Thanks for posting, that.

But any physical activity will improve health compared with performing none, he said. So walk one day, maybe jog another, and borrow a bicycle or join a spinning class on still another. Whichever activity you enjoy the most and will stick with is the best activity for you.

Totally agree with this. The best exercise is which ever one you are willing to do and stick with. So, bike, walk, run, dance, whatever. Just do it.

Worth reading Colenso's comment after the article - cycling is too efficient to use much energy in a short time unless hills are involved, walking takes too long - but as stated above, any exercise is better than none and some of us cannot run very far or often due to joint problems. Cycling has a value above just exercise (You get to see the country) but carries a risk (recently broken wrist), walking is safe(er) but might take all day...

Anyway, I still do all three but probably spend the most time walking nowadays.

Running has the added benefit of a great reduction in the risk of osteoporosis, if you choose cycling, walking or some lower intensity training some weight training might be a good idea.

Runners can greatly reduce knee problems by changing their running technique, not landing on the heel and instead land on the forefoot only, using their calves and feet as shock absorbers instead of their shoes, knees and hips. The forefoot must never land further than directly under their center of gravity, short fast steps. Like you were running barefoot basically.

Cycling can be nice, you travel further and can enjoy more various views, but I find it too dangerous in a big city, especially if you're supposed to go fast.

But of course, the highest priority is to choose the activity you like best or at least can stand doing on a regular basis. Never to let the search for the perfect solution stop you from making a small improvement.

I much much prefer cycling to running. I always feel like I am about to die when I run anywhere, but I feel nicely invigorated after cycling.

Michael H:
Thanks for the tip ... I've been experimenting with running, and I need to do more.

Runners can greatly reduce knee problems by changing their running technique, not landing on the heel and instead land on the forefoot only, using their calves and feet as shock absorbers instead of their shoes, knees and hips

This post is a little bit old, but I often think about running vs. cycling too. I can never find calorie burning information about Mountain biking, which is very popular where I live in Washington State, USA. We have so many hills, usually I have to bike up hill about 1000 feet, 30 minutes and then down hill (time depends on your risk tolerance) So, I wonder how many calories I'm burning. Of course, if I choose to run, I also have to run uphill! Can't get away from the hills here! In bad weather or when my back hurts I switch to running, but it's pretty much torture.

Two quick links to whet your appetite:

http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/bl ... ories.html

http://www.livestrong.com/article/22935 ... vs-biking/

And the search that located them:

https://www.google.com/search?q=calorie ... =&oe=&rlz=

Nina10 - it should be easy to work out the energy burned going uphill, if you convert everything into metres your 1000 foot climb would use approximately 330 x (mass of you plus bike) x 10 Joules of energy. If you + bike = 80 kilos then this would be a total of 264000 Joules, or 264kJ. There are 4.2 Joules per calorie so this would be equivalent to 63 kcal - which does not sound like much, but it it only the vertical component of the energy used and it did only take half a hour...
In the comparison with running, biking uphill must use more energy because you have to lift the bike as well as yourself!