Walking or cycling

GeorgeOrwell

This is a question which has been bugging me for a while.

Say it takes me 30 minutes to walk fairly briskly between work and home, but I can grab a DublinBike and cycle the same distance in 15 minutes.

When I cycle, I can feel my heart-rate increase and so I arrive home feeling slightly out of breath, but when I walk, it takes longer but is less intensive.

Which burns the most calories? The long brisk walk, or the fast quick bike ride?

seamus

Really impossible to quantify without knowing the level of exertion.

Cycling is roughly 4 times more efficient than walking. Which means that if you walk somewhere at 5km/h and cycle back at 5km/h, then the cycle will only burn one-quarter of the calories of the walk. If you cycle back at 20km/h, you will burn the same amount of calories per minute, but it will only take you a quarter of the time. So you'll still only burn one-quarter of the calories.

So at the most basic level, walking the distance burns more calories.

However, it's not actually that simple, because as you note you are warmed up and breathing heavier after the cycle. This effect lasts beyond the cycle (so your rate of calorie consumption is temporarily increased), and in the longer-term it builds muscle mass in your legs which increases your calorie consumption.