Cycling + Rower - Over 50 (old bastard)

[WonderMonkey]

Well this thread was up and down!

Thanks for the input, all, very much appreciated.

[4truth]

Shut the fcuk up moron. I did it, you ain't done shet but run your mouth on a dying website. Go on tread mill for 1 hour, check the calorie counter, then go to a fcuking bike and check the calorie counter for an hour you ****** fcuk.

War!!!

seriously though, the bike is a great way to burn a ton of calories, if quantity of sweat is any indication. Walking on the treadmill, not so much.

[War Room]

War!!!

seriously though, the bike is a great way to burn a ton of calories, if quantity of sweat is any indication. Walking on the treadmill, not so much.

You got to look at actual calorie counters. You burn 3x more calories walking than biking. Go on an expensive treadmill that has a solid calorie counter, do 60 minutes at 3.5 mph and look at the calories burned. Then compare it to the bike at a similar pace.

Think about it man, you're not supporting any weight on a bike, just moving your legs. When you walk, you're supporting your entire body weight and 3.5 mph isn't a slow walk.

[4truth]

You got to look at actual calorie counters. You burn 3x more calories walking than biking. Go on an expensive treadmill that has a solid calorie counter, do 60 minutes at 3.5 mph and look at the calories burned. Then compare it to the bike at a similar pace.

Think about it man, you're not supporting any weight on a bike, just moving your legs. When you walk, you're supporting your entire body weight and 3.5 mph isn't a slow walk.

You are not riding the bike correctly. Try alternating between spinning at over 100 rpms for about 3-4 minutes, crank up the resistance, get out of the saddle and do the next 3-4 minutes at about 60-70 rpms. Rinse and repeat as many times necessary to exhaust yourself, 30-40 minutes is difficult and I guarantee will burn more calories than walking.

You only get out of any exercise what you put into it. I agree with you that if are just moving your legs with minimum effort, walking might be better.

[War Room]

You are not riding the bike correctly. Try alternating between spinning at over 100 rpms for about 3-4 minutes, crank up the resistance, get out of the saddle and do the next 3-4 minutes at about 60-70 rpms. Rinse and repeat as many times necessary to exhaust yourself, 30-40 minutes is difficult and I guarantee will burn more calories than walking.

You only get out of any exercise what you put into it. I agree with you that if are just moving your legs with minimum effort, walking might be better.

If you do the same intensity alternations with walking, you burn more calories. At the end of the day, you're wrong. Walking burns more, not even a discussion.

[4truth]

If you do the same intensity alternations with walking, you burn more calories. At the end of the day, you're wrong. Walking burns more, not even a discussion.

I doubt I could get my heart rate above 80 walking, unless it were up a steep incline. On a spin bike I try to keep my HR in the 130-140 range.

Again, you are not riding correctly.

[War Room]

I doubt I could get my heart rate above 80 walking, unless it were up a steep incline. On a spin bike I try to keep my HR in the 130-140 range.

Again, you are not riding correctly.

I doubt x "UNLESS" jesus man, knock it off and put the kool aid down. Like I said before, it has to do with intensity. Admit defeat like a real man and learn something from someone who actually did something in this sport. In the meantime, check the numbers and don't fudge it so you can be right. Why this is such a revolutionary thing to you is mind boggling. The facts are there, you just keep trying to move the goal posts for whatever reason. 4truth eh?

[markusmod]

If you do the same intensity alternations with walking, you burn more calories. At the end of the day, you're wrong. Walking burns more, not even a discussion.

what about walking vs. elliptical?

[4truth]

https://www.rydoze.com/biking-vs-walking/

When it comes to burning calories, cycling is a much faster way to lose weight than walking.

On flat ground,a 150-pound person would burn roughly 600 calories cycling for an hour (depending on speed) compared to only about 300 calories per hour walking.

In addition, cyclists are likely to further the gap even more since covering a greater distance on a bike in that hour of exercise means they are more likely to encounter hills, which would increase the number of calories burned.


there are numerous articles, all draw the same conclusion. It isn't even close

[War Room]

what about walking vs. elliptical?

I can't say I've looked at the calorie counters on top machines, but presumably you burn way more calories on an elliptical per minute.

https://www.rydoze.com/biking-vs-walking/

When it comes to burning calories, cycling is a much faster way to lose weight than walking.

On flat ground,a 150-pound person would burn roughly 600 calories cycling for an hour (depending on speed) compared to only about 300 calories per hour walking.

In addition, cyclists are likely to further the gap even more since covering a greater distance on a bike in that hour of exercise means they are more likely to encounter hills, which would increase the number of calories burned.


there are numerous articles, all draw the same conclusion. It isn't even close

You're using a biking site to make a point about biking vs walking, do you think that's reasonable? Of course a biking site is going to say biking is better than x. Terrible research methodology. When you hit junior year of any reputable university you have to take a class on research methodology, like a jr year writing or etc. Obviously you've only got a hs diploma or community college at best. Independant sources produce better research credability. Like, you going to trust statistics on lung cancer from a cigarette company? No, you go to an independant fcuking source. Jesus Christ save us!

From the same livestrong link, but this doesn't fit your agenda?

Bumping up the distance or intensity of your walk increases the number of calories you burn. One easy way to do this is by incorporating elevation in your walk. Head to a nearby hill in your neighborhood, or set your treadmill to an incline.

Key words seem to be ignored: flat ground, depending on speed. Do you have a TBI pr something, born with neological deficits, or simply less brain matter than a normal human if similar size?

Walking is a slower intensity form of running. INTENSITY, get it? Not all calorie counters spit out the same numbers, has that thought ever crossed your mind? High end machines produce high end data results.

It's like scales. Buy a 50 dollar scale, step on it 5x, get 5 different results. Step on a $1000 scale, step on it 5x and get the same EXACT result 5x. It's a fact, I have a 200+ dollar scale, user testimonial. Tried the cheaper ones, got different results. Researched why, I LEARNED something.

I've walked the walk and would burn 800+ calories an hour with minimal incline and good speeds. I've tried biking machines to switch it up and got readouts of 300+ an hour for almost exact intensity. If I up the intensity on the bike, I would naturally have to up the intensity on the treadmill. Intensity, intensity, intensity, get it kid?

My time isn't free chimp. Next idiot response gets you on the ignore list, I don't have time for such low level discussions. Do the work on the proper quality products or just shut the fcuk up. Websites don't mean shet. I could make a website and say whatever the fcuk I want to say based on whatever agenda I have.

The internet says a lot of shet, not everything is on the internet. Boxing is a great example. My boxing knowledge passed on from old masters is nowhere found on the internet. Does that make it not true?