nigelnorris
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Birmingham
Which is why the first statement makes sense. You might have misunderstood me, when I said the effort required to move from a to b remains constant I meant if you are on a bike. Cycling at walking pace or at relatively high speed must surely use roughly the same amount of energy to travel a fixed distance of say a mile, which will be less than walking the same distance.ASC1951 said:When you walk you raise your entire body weight with each step; when you run you raise it even further. On a bike you only lift your legs, which is why cycling is so much more efficient.
The point was that it doesn't make much sense to say that "Cycling requires LESS calories PER MINUTE than...[anything really]', because in this case the energy used per unit of time depends entirely on the speed at which you are cycling. That's all I meant.ASC1951 said:I don't see the point of your comparison between plodding along on foot and thrashing yourself on a bike. If you are talking about severity of exercise, people usually do it at the same discomfort threshold no matter what it is. I use more calories a minute swimming front crawl than shuffling to the shops, but so what?
If you want to qualify the statement by specifying workrate, be it at a given discomfort threshold or whatever other criteria you might choose then yes, it becomes a more reasonable comparison.