Weight loss? Whats better cycling or running?

[durianrider]

Id say cycling hands down. Cos heavy people can do it easily and safely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWY63gcW7NQ

 

[Martin318is]

Sliding scale I guess. For large people, cycling is best (and swimming etc wouldnt hurt either) due to the health risk element you mention, but the closer you get to 'healthy weight' the more effective running probably becomes for speed of weight loss.

Personally, I mix riding and hiking with a loaded backpack (I use a number of 1.25L bottles filled with water in my pack).

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Badminton and cycling was very good for me..once.

 

[FrankDay]

Id say cycling hands down. Cos heavy people can do it easily and safely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWY63gcW7NQ

I say running. Because one feels the effect of the extra weight more running so there is more incentive to lose weight if trying to run. Because, as you point out, heavy people can cycle "easily" there is less awareness of the need to lose weight.

 

[Martin318is]

I say running. Because one feels the effect of the extra weight more running so there is more incentive to lose weight if trying to run. Because, as you point out, heavy people can cycle "easily" there is less awareness of the need to lose weight.

I think you misunderstand what people are meaning by the term "heavy". Heavy is generally 'obese'. If a heavy person starts running they do sufficient damage to themselves that they lose no weight at all. Stress fractures, knee, ankle, foot injuries are all highly likely before much weight is lost. As I said, start out with cycling as it does not have joint impact and then once the dangerous weight has been lost, supplement or even replace with running.

I agree though that for someone carrying say 10kg excess starting out with walking / running is the best plan.

 

[daveinzambia]

I think you misunderstand what people are meaning by the term "heavy". Heavy is generally 'obese'. If a heavy person starts running they do sufficient damage to themselves that they lose no weight at all. Stress fractures, knee, ankle, foot injuries are all highly likely before much weight is lost. As I said, start out with cycling as it does not have joint impact and then once the dangerous weight has been lost, supplement or even replace with running.

I agree though that for someone carrying say 10kg excess starting out with walking / running is the best plan.

I switched to cycling after running due to Ankle injuries so can back this up.

would also say time is a factor. Cycling is good but requires more dedication. when unfit i think you can burn off of calories running in half the time you can riding. running works better for people who have struggled with starting to exercise as a 30 minute run can have a big impact.

of course the real answer is neither is the best way to lose weight, that probably lies in some sort of circuit training regime. But for me personally 2 hours riding a bike is better than 30 minutes NOT doing weights.

obviously most of weight loss is in diet. one thing i have struggled with is finding a balance for losing weight while doing a fair amount of exercise. there is lots of diet advice out there but if you are riding for 2 hours a day you need to eat more than most plans will tell you. i found 3 days of riding hard and eating well and i would crash badly and 3 days of no riding and eating loads would set me back to the start

 

[FrankDay]

I think you misunderstand what people are meaning by the term "heavy". Heavy is generally 'obese'. If a heavy person starts running they do sufficient damage to themselves that they lose no weight at all. Stress fractures, knee, ankle, foot injuries are all highly likely before much weight is lost. As I said, start out with cycling as it does not have joint impact and then once the dangerous weight has been lost, supplement or even replace with running.

I agree though that for someone carrying say 10kg excess starting out with walking / running is the best plan.

I think you misunderstand how "heavy" people are supposed to learn to "run". I have been involved in teaching 100's of sedentary people in how to successfully "run" a marathon in 9 months or less (with a 95% success rate). If people are sustaining all of those injuries they are probably trying to run too fast. Running requires zero special equipment and no need to carry tools or spares and no need to share the road with cars. I still vote for running (jogging/walking).

 

[AngusW]

For me, running causes me to lose weight much faster than cycling.

 

[daveinzambia]

I think you misunderstand how "heavy" people are supposed to learn to "run". I have been involved in teaching 100's of sedentary people in how to successfully "run" a marathon in 9 months or less (with a 95% success rate). If people are sustaining all of those injuries they are probably trying to run too fast. Running requires zero special equipment and no need to carry tools or spares and no need to share the road with cars. I still vote for running (jogging/walking).

I guess we are dealing with average people though.

the vast majority of which would probably start running with little or no help. and that is where the danger to over do it, get injured and give up comes in.

the marathon thing is interesting. like i say i was under the impression that the 'best' way to lose weight is circuit training. but personally for me having a target like a marathon is a bigger incentive.

the more i think about it, while riding does have benefits to injury prevention i worry it really does require dedication (gear etc). if people can start out commuting to work etc it is great but otherwise think you really have to enjoy cycling to get up at 5.30 on a cold day to ride

 

[elapid]

like i say i was under the impression that the 'best' way to lose weight is circuit training. but personally for me having a target like a marathon is a bigger incentive.

+1. Although not exactly what DR is asking (running v cycling), a combination of strength training (circuits for example) and cardio seem to be very effective for weight loss because of the sustained upregulated energy metabolism following a strength workout. I also think an incentive really helps, whether it be an exercise goal (marathon or, for me, big rides like the Tour of Colorado or Ride Around Mt. Ranier In One Day) or a social event (wedding, reunion, etc).

 

[CoachFergie]

When doing the personal trainer thing a long time ago I got the best fat loss results from circuit training and cardio and of course a sensible diet.

 

[Martin318is]

I think you misunderstand how "heavy" people are supposed to learn to "run". I have been involved in teaching 100's of sedentary people in how to successfully "run" a marathon in 9 months or less (with a 95% success rate). If people are sustaining all of those injuries they are probably trying to run too fast. Running requires zero special equipment and no need to carry tools or spares and no need to share the road with cars. I still vote for running (jogging/walking).

Frank,
Here is a suggestion. If you dont want to get challeneged for making shorthand statements - Dont make them. Try adding the extra detail the first time to qualify your answers rather than leaving everyone to guess. Your first post uses only the word running repeatedly and now suddenly you are implying that we should all have interpreted that as including walking as a subset of running.

 

[FrankDay]

Frank,
Here is a suggestion. If you dont want to get challeneged for making shorthand statements - Dont make them. Try adding the extra detail the first time to qualify your answers rather than leaving everyone to guess. Your first post uses only the word running repeatedly and now suddenly you are implying that we should all have interpreted that as including walking as a subset of running.

At the Honolulu Marathon Clinic some of the "mentors" set 12 and 15 minute mile paces for the newbies. And, it was always ok to walk if you couldn't talk. All of it was called "running" and it is running to the average person just starting out. Olympic race walkers go along at 5-6 minute miles. Does that mean a 7 minute mile pace is not running?

Anyhow, it is the internet and while composing responses to threads I am not normally writing a textbook that is complete with references. (Further, I know nothing of the age, education, and experience of those reading the thread.) If something I write needs clarification all one need do is ask (or challenge), I am not offended.

 

[Martin318is]

Fair enough, which is why it would have possibly been more expressive of your actual point of view to write something like:

I say for the goal of safe weight loss it is best to start a programme of walking / jogging with a goal of working up to consistent running rather than just cycling. Because one feels the effect of the extra weight more running so there is more incentive to lose weight if trying to run. Because, as you point out, heavy people can cycle "easily" there is less awareness of the need to lose weight.

which most would agree with. It just took a handful of extra words...

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

which one is better depends on which one a person likes to do better. I hate running, so I don't run. I love cycling, so I ride. And I'll spend way more time riding. Cycling is better... for me.

 

[biopass]

Both running and cycling wont help unless you eat less.

 

[elapid]

Both running and cycling wont help unless you eat less.

Although in reality it is not this simple, but essentially weight loss should happen if you burn more calories than you consume. Hence, you can lose weight by exercising more regardless if you eating the same amount or less.

 

[Martin318is]

Where it gets tricky is that if you go too hard too early you will lose weight rapidly - and gain it back again almost equally as rapidly.

If you greatly increase exercise and drop calories at the same time, the gulf between the in and out can get too big to be sustainable.

The walk / jog / run approach is good because you can balance your diet against this so you dont shock the system and the weightloss becomes more enduring.

 

[Random Direction]

Mix 1 part weights with one part cycling or running and keep calories under control. Running will be more effective than cycling as it is weight bearing, however some people can't run due to knees, etc. For me, cross-country skiing works best - love it the most.

 

[Polyarmour]

Running and cycling have roughly the same calorie expenditure but once fit you can cycle 3-4hrs/day. You'd be doing very well if you could run 30 minutes/day as an overweight person.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Running and cycling have roughly the same calorie expenditure but once fit you can cycle 3-4hrs/day. You'd be doing very well if you could run 30 minutes/day as an overweight person.

Really? Regardless of pace, a typical runner burns just about 100 calories/mile. I find that rate burnt cycling unrealistic (maybe by time? 500 calories in 40 minutes at 8:00/mile, 600+ at 7:00/mile). I don't know cycling very well though, I'd love to hear for sure.

I agree that cycling is a more accessible sport from a fitness standpoint. Cycling for an hour is more appealing to a new comer than running a third that long. Also, beginners will be more resilient in terms of injuries and maintenance than on a bike. Of course, the financial accessibility is a different story

Running though is better for peak weight. Very few people are concerned about getting into a peak racing weight, but the stregnth/power demands of cycling require much more muscle than high level running, and so cyclists will carry more weight, relatively.

 

[Polyarmour]

Really? Regardless of pace, a typical runner burns just about 100 calories/mile. I find that rate burnt cycling unrealistic (maybe by time? 500 calories in 40 minutes at 8:00/mile, 600+ at 7:00/mile). I don't know cycling very well though, I'd love to hear for sure.

I agree that cycling is a more accessible sport from a fitness standpoint. Cycling for an hour is more appealing to a new comer than running a third that long. Also, beginners will be more resilient in terms of injuries and maintenance than on a bike. Of course, the financial accessibility is a different story

Running though is better for peak weight. Very few people are concerned about getting into a peak racing weight, but the stregnth/power demands of cycling require much more muscle than high level running, and so cyclists will carry more weight, relatively.

Yes I was referring to Calories/hour.... not much point in comparing calories/mile as a bicycle is a much more efficient means of transport.

Depending on how hard you push yourself it's not difficult to burn up 700-1000 calories/hour. For very fit cyclists even more. However we were talking about overweight people as I understood it. Overweight people don't like running as a general rule, not good on the joints etc, whereas they can still sit on a bike and burn up 700 cals/hr minimum no problem. Anyway that was my experience. I lost 20kgs riding my bike. Even when I was overweight I had no trouble cycling for 3 hours. But I couldn't have run for even 10 minutes without complaining.

 

[durianrider]

so looks like we all agree that if you're a heavy person and or don't have extensive running history you will get slimmer and avoid more injuries if you take up cycling vs running.

 

[Martin318is]

so looks like we all agree that if you're a heavy person and or don't have extensive running history you will get slimmer and avoid more injuries if you take up cycling vs running.

yep - assuming that by the use of 'slimmer' you mean 'slimmer than you are now' rather than ' slimmer than if you ran instead'.

 

[durianrider]