Biking vs Walking

[lonelyt]

I can either walk 2.5 miles to work or bike there. Walking obviously would take longer. Which would would be better for an aerobic workout?

 

[Deeko]

biking, no question

 

[lonelyt]

Is there an argument for walking, since I'd be active for a longer period of time?

 

[Deeko]

Not really, unless you're 85 and can't handle the elevated heartrate of biking.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: lonelyt
Is there an argument for walking, since I'd be active for a longer period of time?

Keep in mind that although, with walking, you would be going for a longer period of time that biking is more intense and will have a longer lasting effect on your metabolism. I would say biking would also be more convenient for ya.

 

[Cogman]

I've heard as well that biking is less ruff on the joints. So in almost every way it is better then walking.

 

[presidentender]

Bike. Anecdotally, I just started biking instead of walking to work. Biking makes me sweat and breathe hard and my heart rate is elevated long after I get there; longer, I think, than it took me to walk. Walking doesn't do anything except bore me. YMMV, IANAL, IANAD, yadda yadda.

 

[MegaVovaN]

Hmm.

I would say walking, especially with load (backpack, bag) is harder than biking.

Why I don't like other opinions in here saying that biking > walking is because 2.5 miles is really short distance for a bike. I freakin run 5 miles for my cardio. When I bike, I bike for at least 15 miles.

Why walking is hard? Because every day, I walk 8 min to the bus stop, then a mile (15 min) from bus stop to college campus. With backpack. Then I walk back to bus (1 mile), and then 8 minutes to the door. Overall that counts to about 2.5 miles. While it is not particularly tiring, it is not a walk in the park.


So, OP, try walking. Biking 2.5 miles is a joke! Anybody in half decent aerobic shape would just finish warming up in 3 miles of bike.
OP, you can also bike to work and do additional cardio such as longer bike ride or running.


edit: plus, if you walk at my pace (1 mile = 15 min, pretty relaxed walk) walking will take you 38 min, while biking, even if you bike at slow 10mph, will take you only 15 minutes. So, when you walk, your cardio system will be more active for 3x longer (but less intensity than bike).

And I am skeptical about the whole "lasting effect on metabolism" thing.

 

[crt1530]

Since you are talking about a fixed distance, walking will burn more calories and give you a better workout. Biking is a fairly efficient way to cover ground when it comes to energy expenditure.

 

[edcarman]

I would say that walking would burn more calories than a low paced ride.
2.5 miles is also a really short distance to ride. Even if you do it up a massively steep hill it shouldn't take much longer than 25min and in that case, the return journey will take about 4min and expend almost no energy.

I agree with MegaVovaN: ride to work and use the time saved to do some extra cardio. Depending on traffic in your area, you might consider turning your home ride into a proper training ride (not such a good idea for the to-work ride unless you've got shower facilities there)

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: MegaVovaN
Hmm.

I would say walking, especially with load (backpack, bag) is harder than biking.

Why I don't like other opinions in here saying that biking > walking is because 2.5 miles is really short distance for a bike. I freakin run 5 miles for my cardio. When I bike, I bike for at least 15 miles.

Why walking is hard? Because every day, I walk 8 min to the bus stop, then a mile (15 min) from bus stop to college campus. With backpack. Then I walk back to bus (1 mile), and then 8 minutes to the door. Overall that counts to about 2.5 miles. While it is not particularly tiring, it is not a walk in the park.


So, OP, try walking. Biking 2.5 miles is a joke! Anybody in half decent aerobic shape would just finish warming up in 3 miles of bike.
OP, you can also bike to work and do additional cardio such as longer bike ride or running.


edit: plus, if you walk at my pace (1 mile = 15 min, pretty relaxed walk) walking will take you 38 min, while biking, even if you bike at slow 10mph, will take you only 15 minutes. So, when you walk, your cardio system will be more active for 3x longer (but less intensity than bike).

And I am skeptical about the whole "lasting effect on metabolism" thing.

Ever try biking up a steep hill with a 30 lb pack (of textbooks)? Trust me, walking is far easier.

Also, I ride my bike everywhere on campus, and I'll typically be in a light sweat by the time I reach my destination (I put a decent amount of effort into it). After a few weeks, walking to the same destination simply takes longer, with literally no sweat or rise in heart rate (due to physical exertion).

Biking > walking. That said, if you stick to lower gears you won't get nearly as much out of it. I ride a mountain bike for a workout on paved trails/roads because of the increased drag/suspension. I like a challenge.

 

[KoolDrew]

Do whatever you prefer. In the end I doubt it's really going to matter too much.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Road bike would be a much easier ride than a MTB with trail tires, treating that 2.5m as a sprint. Otherwise, run it, 2.5m run each way, every day,. will definitely make a positive difference in your physical conditioning.

 

[MegaVovaN]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Road bike would be a much easier ride than a MTB with trail tires, treating that 2.5m as a sprint. Otherwise, run it, 2.5m run each way, every day,. will definitely make a positive difference in your physical conditioning.

:thumbsup: I see only one problem: to sprint, you want to warm up first...and that will take all of 2.5 miles

So, run it!

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Definitely biking. Walking will burn more calories but will not throw your body into aerobic respiration, where you burn fat. Walking is not intense enough; you will burn more calories and get hungry.


If you want an aerobic workout and want to burn fat then go with biking.

If you want to metabolize a meal you just ate then go with walking.

 

[StageLeft]

Walking that distance will burn far more calories. In reality, neither is going to give much of a cardio workout, but 2.5 miles is chewed up so quickly I would almost say walking is better here for one.

 

[onlyCOpunk]

Walking at a brisk pace? Unless you want to get to work all sweaty, like Jim in that episode of the Office. Of course it also depends how easy of a bike ride it is, what type of bike you will be using. I used to ride a one speed cruiser to school. It was fine for downhill, but going up absolutely murdered me.