Just curious, if its the same exact sustained HR, would your body burn fat/calories the same on a bike and on the the trail?
Just curious, if its the same exact sustained HR, would your body burn fat/calories the same on a bike and on the the trail?
Probably would burn more on the bike. I can never get my HR that high on a bike, takes a lot of effort to get my HR to the 140s compared to easy runs
Running is a full body movement (tighened core, head in position, arm swing, the obvious leg movement) cycling is more of a lower half body movement (mildly tight core, and leg drive) it's no wonder you will have a lower heart rate on a bike vs running. And yeah to get your hr up on a bike faster and to feel it more would be to pedal faster or increase resistance(gravity or tension). You have alot more muscles firing during a run than the amount of muscles firing on a bike. As far as which would burn more I think it would be the same +/- something very insignificant compared to the overall caloric burn.
1lb of bricks = 1lb of bricks wrote:
Running is a full body movement (tighened core, head in position, arm swing, the obvious leg movement) cycling is more of a lower half body movement (mildly tight core, and leg drive) it's no wonder you will have a lower heart rate on a bike vs running. And yeah to get your hr up on a bike faster and to feel it more would be to pedal faster or increase resistance(gravity or tension). You have alot more muscles firing during a run than the amount of muscles firing on a bike. As far as which would burn more I think it would be the same +/- something very insignificant compared to the overall caloric burn.
I don't think so, and you even touch on it in the first part of your comment. You have to "work harder" to get an equivalent HR on the bike. Work = watts of energy = more calories.
Arm carriage is work to propel one forward too, as well as activating lower back and core muscles to maintain a forward lean(without falling forward). Cycling requires more leg work but other muscles are on standby in the process. A full body motion will feel more effortless because it's dispersed across the full body, a lower half body motion will feel more harder because half the body is making the same output. So in my opinion, at the end of the day 145bpm workout is still 145bpm workout the only difference being what muscle groups got you there.
"145bpm workout is still 145bpm workout the only difference being what muscle groups got you there."
Okay now think about this - You get your HR to 145 by lifting very heavy weights for 30mins. I think this would burn a lot more.
slaptap wrote:
Okay now think about this - You get your HR to 145 by lifting very heavy weights for 30mins. I think this would burn a lot more.
This would be physically impossible.
slaptap wrote:
"145bpm workout is still 145bpm workout the only difference being what muscle groups got you there."
Okay now think about this - You get your HR to 145 by lifting very heavy weights for 30mins. I think this would burn a lot more.
Think what you'd like, you're obviously implying a weightlifter is doing a circuit workout with "very" heavy weights. A 155lb dude going from a 135lb bench straight to 185lb squat, to a 135lb barbell row, then straight into a 305 deadlift, back to a 135lb bench. Needless to say these aren't even very heavy weights for a 155lb dude, and i highly doubt this example could get through this workout at 145bpm, much less get through it with crashing 15minutes in. No weightlifter real weight lifter does a 30 min workout. Try 50+ min and no weightlifter is trying to work on their cardio under the bar, more like correct form and # of sets and reps. And people tend to think that there is some MASSIVE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE in two nearly identical studies. The difference is so slight that you're basically talking about a difference of 15 calories in a 30 min example when the heart rate of one person (the same person) is ONLY 145bpm. 15 calories is probably a quarter of an apple slice so you have an idea.