Is Biking more better or strenous than walking?

Answer 1

On flat terrain, riding a bike takes about 1/4 the amount of effort than walking the same distance.

So if you want to burn the same amount of calories as walking 1 mile, you have to bike 4 miles. (i.e. biking is less strenuous).

It's a different story on rough terrain though. Mountain biking on rough terrain will expend more calories than biking on flat ground.

Hope this helps!

Answer 2

I think cycling is better for toning the body, especially the legs. Walking (and even moreso jogging) can be tough on the knees if you do it a lot. Cycling, on the other hand, stretches and tones the leg muscles without the impact.

As for which is more strenuous, I'd say it depends on how you do each exercise. Cycling can be very strenuous if you are going up a lot of hills. An objective way to test each one, I suppose, is to check your pulse occasionally as you are doing your routine - the higher your pulse, the more work you are doing.

* * * *

In response to thddspc's comment: Sure, I believe cycling takes maybe 1/4 the calories to cover the same distance, but you'll cover that distance in about 1/4 the time. Calorie-wise, I'd say an hour of cycling vs an hour of walking are pretty close.

Answer 3

Depends on which type of riding, and what you're looking for.

I don't know much about road biking, but in mountain bike you excersice your whole body. You do need to move your body a lot to balance on the mountain.

You don't grow muscles in volume, but more in speed and make them lean.

Strenous, it depends. If you only do climbing, it is tiring, but it is satifying if you like it. And on the downhill, well, it's a lot of fun and you will likely get a nice adrenalize rush.

Answer 4

They use different muscles. Dr. Kenneth Cooper wrote a book that included a point system based upon speed and distance for many different exercises.

To get the full benefit of cycling, ride a bike that fits you well and use toe clips. Adjust seat height so you use thigh muscles and back rather than just knee and ankle joints. The toe clips help you use different muscles to both push and pull on the pedals.

Answer 5

I agree with zanti but with one caveat: Cycling does little for your bones. To compare the two for superiority purposes is misguided. The flaw with serious and constant walking can have a neagative impact the impact on your knees. However, serious and constant cycling is easier on the knees but your bones aren't getting stronger. This is the reason that professional cyclists break bones faster than the rest of us. They have weaker bones because they rarely experience the impact that walking offers- which helps strengthen the bones. A balance of both exercises can help negate any of their faults.

Answer 6

Hi blondie,
There are benefits to both.

Cycking will probably provide you with more of a cardio benefit than walking and depending on how fast you go you'll could burn more calories.
On the flip side, walking will provide more of a benefit to your upper body and since it provides "impact" it will promote bone generation which cycling will not.
Walking is also cheaper.
Bottom line, they are both good so it really is your choice
have fun

Answer 7

To cover the same distance in the same amount of time, walking is much much more strenous.

I could cycle a hundred miles in a day but walk?

Answer 8

walking is better for it will tone the entire body ;;; riding a bike makes you loose weight and tones mainley the legs