just going at a heart rate of 150, what burns more calories? what could be a good measure to compare the two?
just going at a heart rate of 150, what burns more calories? what could be a good measure to compare the two?
always running, dog
Running burns calories far more quickly than biking.
MWRun wrote:
Running burns calories far more quickly than biking.
not if your a biker
1 - it's a lot easier to hit that 150 HR running and you will fell a lot more comfortable doing it, because when running you use your whole body, generating that oxygen demand more easily.
2 - you will probably burn cloe to the same amount of calories at a given HR whether you are running or biking, but your post-exercise rate of calories burned should be higher for running. This is speculation, but I belive it is mostly to do with the weight-bearing nature of running and the muscular destruction that occurs.
3 - A "serious" runner can/will run an hour a day and can sustain that for weeks. Whereas, if you wanted to, most people can build up to 2.5 hours a day of riding and sustain this, burning more calories overall than running.
right on
ride on :-)
Running burns more per unit time working out. You can bike for longer, therefore are capable of burning more calories in the long run if you are willing to put in the time. Lance biked 4 to 8 hours a day (I beleive). Try doing that on foot.
Dr. Ken Cooper here in Dallas and was once up for Sergion General for G.W. use to say one mile of running is equal to three miles of cycling.
2:18 wrote:
Dr. Ken Cooper here in Dallas and was once up for Sergion General for G.W. use to say one mile of running is equal to three miles of cycling.
I have been given that info many of times. So there must be some validity to it.