Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
5 mins on a bike isn't as good for you as a 20 min walk.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:07, Reply)
What about 30 mins on an exercise bike?
How much walking would match that?
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:08, Reply)
I am after cycling fast to work, especially after the hill by my office.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:09, Reply)
basically cyclying is a more efficient way of moving around so you use less energy doing it.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:15, Reply)
Rather than longer periods where you don't push yourself.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:17, Reply)
but 8mins isn't long enough even for a short burst you need about 20mins at least.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:19, Reply)
it only takes about 10 minutes. It was hilly enough to knacker you, but not long enough to do any lasting good.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:22, Reply)
Very soon I'll be tacking the extra 6 miles on. Then once that becomes easier, I'll push further.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:22, Reply)
but not many people cycle at 3 miles an hour. It's not strictly because it's more efficient. It's because it's non-weight bearing, so you are only accelerating your mass horizontally, not vertically against gravity.
cycling at 12 miles an hour requires 16 times as much energy, more or less, than cycling at 3 miles an hour. And 12 miles an hour is still a pretty slow cycling speed, even for someone unfit. And 16 times would easily cancel out the "non-vertical accleration" thing.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:55, Reply)
it just eats into your day though.
Half an hour of swimming after work works nicely for me.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:09, Reply)
It's only 25 mins each way and when you think even if I drove at rush hour that would be 10mins with parking etc.
And in the end I do 50 mins of mild exercise a day for something I have to do anyway.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:18, Reply)
it takes about 45 mins to walk to my office, up some significant hills, so I tend to end up sweatier if I walk than if I cycle
plus losing an hour and a half a day to walking to and from work isn't acceptable.
Not the case on secondment though, I have to drive, but at least I have a pool!
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:34, Reply)
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:14, Reply)
One reason I cycle is because running hurts my bad knee after a short time.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:15, Reply)
you look like either Harold Bishop, or a daft middle-aged woman. Fine for Blousie, but not for a young blade like you or I.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:17, Reply)
I just mean a fast walk that gets your heart racing.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:18, Reply)
I saw 'all over the shop', and for some reason that sentence just came into my head.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:47, Reply)
in fact I may test this out and get back to you. I know I burn a lot more calories cycling in to work than I would do walking, and it'd take a fucksight longer.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:23, Reply)
but for short distances it's better for you to walk.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:27, Reply)
but it's a fixed route and I'm assuming he doesn't want to arrive at work absolutly dripping with sweat.
WHY DOES EVERYTHING HAVE TO BE QUALIFIED TWO DOZEN WAYS ON HERE
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:31, Reply)
that in a significant number of scenarios just isn't true. In fact, in almost all scenarios just isn't true.
the only scenario I can see that would make it true is if you have some bizarre meaning for "better for you" other than "number of calories burned" ?
Unless you're just talking about raising your heartrate for longer when walking? unless you are astoundingly unfit, that's not better for you.
(, Tue 25 Jan 2011, 11:45, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread