If i were to go to the same place (local shop for example) sometimes i walk, sometimes i cycle.
Which would burn the most calories?
Trying to loose a few pounds, obviously bike gets me there quicker so would that be less calories or would the extra effort of cyling make up for it?
Hope that makes sense!
I think that cycling is a much easier way to get around that walking - far more efficient. You can whizz along without much effort. If you want to burn calories, then walk briskly.
^^^^^^ I would say 2 things about that.
1. It doesn't seem to take account of terrain or continuity of the exercise. You can freewheel quite a bit when cycling outdoors.
2. Cycling is probably better for muscle development (legs) as it's a kind of interval exercise. Unless you live in Norfolk or Holland you will be going up & down hills - so periods of exercise followed by periods of rest.
So many people have been disappointed by lack of weight loss re. exercise, because you really have to do a lot of exercise to even burn 200 cals. I’d say do which you enjoy the most, and focus on reducing calories in order to create a deficit to lose weight.
AND you walk at about 3mph but cycle at 10mph so on a fixed journey you will be walking 3 times as long as cycling.
Yes - cutting down on calorie intake is the real answer. My friend was getting his dog to lose weight - I said "It's easy when someone else is in control of the food supply!"
John O'Groats: well, walking will shed more pounds but take you weeks longer, so you might want to factor time as well as distance and terrain into the equation.