3 ms·

Purely anecdotal, but I was surprised to find out that I gained significant weight when I switched from walking 6 hours/week to riding a bike for the same amoun

Purely anecdotal, but I was surprised to find out that I gained significant weight when I switched from walking 6 hours/week to riding a bike for the same amount of time. I find it much harder to recover from riding, which makes sense because my heart rate goes way higher. Riding is much more fun, but I suspect you are completely right about walking being the better choice for weight loss. I was at my leanest when my breakfast was just black coffee and it was followed by a 60-90 minute walk.

kijin 2y ago
Also purely anecdotal, but I once lost 17kg (37lb) just by walking an additional 90 minutes a day for several months straight. And successfully maintained the new low weight for years afterward, also by walking moderately more than the usual. The great thing about walking is that you can just keep doing it mindlessly, while also doing other things such as commuting, shopping, running errands and taking care of the dogs, which you need to do anyway. The inefficiency, compared to running, is more than offset by the fact that it's so much easier to find an opportunity to walk.
- high_na_euv 2y ago
  90min/day is a lot Ive started doing 6kmh walk for 30min after gym, two times a week and Ive lost like 10kg in 6 months
  - goostavos 2y ago
    Add a weighted backpack and you can massively ramp up the calorie burning aspect of those shorter walks. "Load carriage" is a thing the military has put some effort into studying. A 50lb pack turns a brisk walk into something that burns 100s of calories. Even an extra 20lbs on your back adds up. It might not feel like a lot, but the difference in heart rate for same perceived effort is shocking.
    - JackMorgan 2y ago
      I have lived on trail, hiking thousands of miles a year with a backpack filled with food, water, and shelter. To hear the claim that hiking with a 50lb pack has the "same perceived effort" is absolutely untrue for me. The difference between 0lb and 20lb is significant. The difference between that and 50lb is monumental. For me, rucking a 50lb pack after about 30 minutes feels like I'm taking hallucinogens, and not in a fun way! Time slows down to a crawl, I can't really understand audio language or even really form thoughts at all. It's like my whole brain stops working and I am nothing but resistance to getting crushed into the ground. I can ruck a 20lb pack for 20 miles a day for weeks, but even that took a lot of training. Doing that with 50lb feels like it would be impossible. Maybe my 135# body has some limiting factor. That being said, I love taking out a 50lb pack just to clear my head. It's like forced meditation.
  - kijin 2y ago
    6km/h is a brisk walk. You need to concentrate on the walking aspect if you want to maintain that pace. Slow down a bit to 4-5km/h and you can last much longer, not to mention multitask more effectively (listen to an audiobook, be on a phone call, just brainstorm, etc.) so you don't actually need to set aside hours a day specifically for walking.
  - watwut 2y ago
    Is a lot and is not a lot at all. When I was using buses to get to work, I got almost 90 min of walking and walking like activities a day just by existing - going to stop, standing on the bus, going to store, walking for lunch or to the office toilettes. It is kind of nothing if you live "the old school way", that amount of walking just accumulates. If you live "the post covid way" or "car with close parking lot way", then it becomes large block of time you have to carve separately.
    - high_na_euv 2y ago
      They said "additional 90m"
- meroes 2y ago
  Also, walking doesn't trigger your appetite as much as running or weight lifting for the same calorie expenditure. That's purely anecdotal but what I've come to conclude. One poster said walking doesn't burn glycogen, which is your immediate fuel source. That correlates because your body needs immediate fuel much more than fat stores.
  - david-gpu 2y ago
    Wow, that's really insightful. Glycogen is consumed during all forms of exercise, even low intensities. What changes is the ratio of glycogen as a percentage of all energy expenditure, called the Glycolytic Quotient or simply Q factor. It sounds plausible that the amount of hunger we feel when we feel a fixed number of calories may depend on how much that depleted our glycogen stores, among other factors.
    - meroes 2y ago
      Thanks for the extra detail. Maybe another brush on it is something like, walking burns glycogen but since the ratio is lower for the same calorie expenditure, it’s harder to fully deplete your glycogen, which is what causes the more intense forms of hunger.
ralferoo 2y ago
I'm not a particularly fast cyclist (usually average around 20km/h), but I'm generally in zone 2 for most of my ride and just creeping into zone 3. On the other hand, being quite fat, I find hills push me much harder than running because I'm forced to go at least 5km/h * because of the gearing of the road bike and having to maintain a cadence of at least 60 (because lower cadence actually makes it harder). Last year, I mostly switched from a road bike to a gravel bike and found the lowest gear far more comfortable for steep hills because the lowest speed was about half. * I actually can't remember the exact speeds, but I think it was about 5mph / 8km/h on the road bike and roughly about 5km/h on the gravel bike.
- dvzk 2y ago
  Common gear ratios for MTB (and gravel) do favor steep inclines much more. It doesn't matter how exhausted you are, if you have a granny gear 46-52t cassette and 30-36t chainring setup, you're solid.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
5555624 2y ago
Walking is a weight bearing exercise, while cycling is not. That's why cyclists can develop osteopenia. (https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/why-cycling-is-bad-for-bone-density-and-how-you-can-improve-it/ https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/why-cycling-is-bad-for-bo...)
- david-gpu 2y ago
  Sure, but I don't think it is reasonable to perform a single physical activity if your goal is maintaining good health anyway. There is a neeed for resistance training, cardio, mobility and balance. E.g. lift weights, ride a bike, do some yoga. It is only a matter of finding activities that you enjoy.
  - hilux 2y ago
    > I don't think it is reasonable to perform a single physical activity The vast majority of middle-aged people who exercise at all, do only one thing.
    - jodrellblank 2y ago
      The vast majority of people aren't maintaining good health. Most people are overweight or obese and have metabolic syndrome.
  - dvzk 2y ago
    I don't think that's reasonable at all. I ride and trail run regularly, and the amount of time that it subtracts from my nerd hobbies is *immense*. Other poster is right, the 99th percentile regular non-professional shredded athletes I know do one thing consistently.
    - david-gpu 2y ago
      Since you are spending an *immense* amount of time trail running, have you contemplated the pros and cons of reducing some of that time commitment and complementing your running with other physical activity to build other areas of your fitness beyond endurance? You do you, but it's a bit like somebody consuming only large amounts of meat and somebody suggesting that it may be beneficial to reduce some of that and balance the diet with some other nutrients.
thefz 2y ago
Higher heart rate zones are notoriously not for weight loss/fat burn. That happens in 1-3, and only for a sustained period. Above you are just destroying your glicogen stores
askvictor 2y ago
I also gained weight when I started running 2-3 times a week + gym 2 times per week. But I strongly suspect that's from increased muscle (though I have also been eating more)

kijin 2y ago

Also purely anecdotal, but I once lost 17kg (37lb) just by walking an additional 90 minutes a day for several months straight. And successfully maintained the new low weight for years afterward, also by walking moderately more than the usual. The great thing about walking is that you can just keep doing it mindlessly, while also doing other things such as commuting, shopping, running errands and taking care of the dogs, which you need to do anyway. The inefficiency, compared to running, is more than offset by the fact that it's so much easier to find an opportunity to walk.

high_na_euv 2y ago
90min/day is a lot Ive started doing 6kmh walk for 30min after gym, two times a week and Ive lost like 10kg in 6 months
- goostavos 2y ago
  Add a weighted backpack and you can massively ramp up the calorie burning aspect of those shorter walks. "Load carriage" is a thing the military has put some effort into studying. A 50lb pack turns a brisk walk into something that burns 100s of calories. Even an extra 20lbs on your back adds up. It might not feel like a lot, but the difference in heart rate for same perceived effort is shocking.
  - JackMorgan 2y ago
    I have lived on trail, hiking thousands of miles a year with a backpack filled with food, water, and shelter. To hear the claim that hiking with a 50lb pack has the "same perceived effort" is absolutely untrue for me. The difference between 0lb and 20lb is significant. The difference between that and 50lb is monumental. For me, rucking a 50lb pack after about 30 minutes feels like I'm taking hallucinogens, and not in a fun way! Time slows down to a crawl, I can't really understand audio language or even really form thoughts at all. It's like my whole brain stops working and I am nothing but resistance to getting crushed into the ground. I can ruck a 20lb pack for 20 miles a day for weeks, but even that took a lot of training. Doing that with 50lb feels like it would be impossible. Maybe my 135# body has some limiting factor. That being said, I love taking out a 50lb pack just to clear my head. It's like forced meditation.
- kijin 2y ago
  6km/h is a brisk walk. You need to concentrate on the walking aspect if you want to maintain that pace. Slow down a bit to 4-5km/h and you can last much longer, not to mention multitask more effectively (listen to an audiobook, be on a phone call, just brainstorm, etc.) so you don't actually need to set aside hours a day specifically for walking.
- watwut 2y ago
  Is a lot and is not a lot at all. When I was using buses to get to work, I got almost 90 min of walking and walking like activities a day just by existing - going to stop, standing on the bus, going to store, walking for lunch or to the office toilettes. It is kind of nothing if you live "the old school way", that amount of walking just accumulates. If you live "the post covid way" or "car with close parking lot way", then it becomes large block of time you have to carve separately.
  - high_na_euv 2y ago
    They said "additional 90m"
meroes 2y ago
Also, walking doesn't trigger your appetite as much as running or weight lifting for the same calorie expenditure. That's purely anecdotal but what I've come to conclude. One poster said walking doesn't burn glycogen, which is your immediate fuel source. That correlates because your body needs immediate fuel much more than fat stores.
- david-gpu 2y ago
  Wow, that's really insightful. Glycogen is consumed during all forms of exercise, even low intensities. What changes is the ratio of glycogen as a percentage of all energy expenditure, called the Glycolytic Quotient or simply Q factor. It sounds plausible that the amount of hunger we feel when we feel a fixed number of calories may depend on how much that depleted our glycogen stores, among other factors.
  - meroes 2y ago
    Thanks for the extra detail. Maybe another brush on it is something like, walking burns glycogen but since the ratio is lower for the same calorie expenditure, it’s harder to fully deplete your glycogen, which is what causes the more intense forms of hunger.

ralferoo 2y ago

I'm not a particularly fast cyclist (usually average around 20km/h), but I'm generally in zone 2 for most of my ride and just creeping into zone 3. On the other hand, being quite fat, I find hills push me much harder than running because I'm forced to go at least 5km/h * because of the gearing of the road bike and having to maintain a cadence of at least 60 (because lower cadence actually makes it harder). Last year, I mostly switched from a road bike to a gravel bike and found the lowest gear far more comfortable for steep hills because the lowest speed was about half. * I actually can't remember the exact speeds, but I think it was about 5mph / 8km/h on the road bike and roughly about 5km/h on the gravel bike.

dvzk 2y ago
Common gear ratios for MTB (and gravel) do favor steep inclines much more. It doesn't matter how exhausted you are, if you have a granny gear 46-52t cassette and 30-36t chainring setup, you're solid.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

5555624 2y ago

Walking is a weight bearing exercise, while cycling is not. That's why cyclists can develop osteopenia. (https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/why-cycling-is-bad-for-bone-density-and-how-you-can-improve-it/ https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/why-cycling-is-bad-for-bo...)

david-gpu 2y ago
Sure, but I don't think it is reasonable to perform a single physical activity if your goal is maintaining good health anyway. There is a neeed for resistance training, cardio, mobility and balance. E.g. lift weights, ride a bike, do some yoga. It is only a matter of finding activities that you enjoy.
- hilux 2y ago
  > I don't think it is reasonable to perform a single physical activity The vast majority of middle-aged people who exercise at all, do only one thing.
  - jodrellblank 2y ago
    The vast majority of people aren't maintaining good health. Most people are overweight or obese and have metabolic syndrome.
- dvzk 2y ago
  I don't think that's reasonable at all. I ride and trail run regularly, and the amount of time that it subtracts from my nerd hobbies is *immense*. Other poster is right, the 99th percentile regular non-professional shredded athletes I know do one thing consistently.
  - david-gpu 2y ago
    Since you are spending an *immense* amount of time trail running, have you contemplated the pros and cons of reducing some of that time commitment and complementing your running with other physical activity to build other areas of your fitness beyond endurance? You do you, but it's a bit like somebody consuming only large amounts of meat and somebody suggesting that it may be beneficial to reduce some of that and balance the diet with some other nutrients.

thefz 2y ago

Higher heart rate zones are notoriously not for weight loss/fat burn. That happens in 1-3, and only for a sustained period. Above you are just destroying your glicogen stores

askvictor 2y ago

I also gained weight when I started running 2-3 times a week + gym 2 times per week. But I strongly suspect that's from increased muscle (though I have also been eating more)