Comment posted Tredmills or Cycling? by CanTexan.
OK.
Treadmills are basically running or walking (which means thy work your cardiovascular system fairly hard, as well as leg and core muslces). Bicycling works the same muscle groups, more or less (slightly different emphasis on specific leg muscles), but requires a longer distance and/or faster time to achieve the same caloric burn.
To estimate calories burned:
- A 120 pound runner jogging at a 10 minute-per-mile pace burns 205 calories in 20 minutes.
- The same person, cycling at 12 miles per hour for 20 minutes, burns 153 calories.
If your weight is different than 120, ratio your weight to the caloric burn. More weight means more energy expended to move it, so more calories burned.
If your speed is different, ratio your speed to whichever activity you are doing. More speed requires more effort, which means more calorie burn.
If you exercise for a different amount of time than that indicated, ratio your time. Longer duration means more energy, which means more calories burned.
Now … using a heart rate monitor can be a big improvement in your training as well. Operating in the anaerobic zone (80-90 % of max) will tend to burn fat, not sugar. Operating in the aerobic zone (70-80 % of max) burns a combination of sugar and fat. Operating below the aerobic threshold burns sugar first, and fat only when all the sugar reserves are gone.
References :
CanTexan also commented
- i have a mill i never use as i like a track better, i do both , bike and jog
References : - Cantexans answer is great except that he has the fuels backwards. In the aerobic zone your primary fuel source is fat, not sugar (glycogen actually, there is a difference). Once you go anaerobic, you start burning glycogen (blood sugar). this leads to lactic acid build up which will wipe you out but quick. For generic fitness and weight loss, you want to stay in the aerobic zone doing exercises that utilize the major muscle groups – glutes, quads, and hamstrings. Cycling and jogging are both highly effective for this. The benefit of cycling is that you can do it for much longer for more total calories burned per workout, though running will burn them at a higher rate.
But, like uncleneal said, get outside! what are you doing trapped on a treadmill in the middle of summer?!?!
References : - I prefer cycling to treadmills or running
cycling is less impact on your joints
and I love being out in the world rather than couped up at home or in a gym
References : - why not both? My most effective workout is a 50 mile ride followed by a 10 mile run.
As for heart rate vs. calories, go to a health club and get a few data points on a good bike and/or treadmill that gives you calorie burn estimates, preferrably one that requires you to enter your weight first. Any time you're at that heart rate, you're probably burning close to that number of calories. Its a rough approximation, but short of spending lots of time and money in an exercise physiology lab, that's as good as it gets.
—–
Note to cantexan: You have your zones badly jumbled.
References : - The one you enjoy most will work best for you. Your more likely to do it.
Cycling does it for me I use it for transport, to get out of the house and to sticky beak around the neighborhood. It is also easier on the joints. Riding to a regular destination helps to stick at it.
There is an algorithm to calculate calories used from heart rate. It is quite complicated and not very accurate. You need to know, your height, weight, body mass index, your temperature, ambient temperature, Ambient pressure, height above sea level etc etc etc.
Many heart rate monitors have a simplified calorie counter built in. (if you want a guide.)
My tip is to concentrate on enjoying what you are doing. The weight comes off just the same. Doing calculations and computations doesn't burn many calories at all.
References :
Recent comments by CanTexan
- Heart Rate Monitor?
Take a look at the Omron HR 100C heart rate monitor. It is one of the best selling heart rate monitors on Amazon. It is quite inexpensive at around $30 on Amazon and delivery is free. The Omron comes with a chest strap and a wrist watch. It is popular for people using a heart rate monitor for the first time.
References :
http://www.heart-rate-monitor-watches.com/omron-hr-100c-heart-rate-monitor.html - Bike computers?
Check out the cyclocomputers on Nashbar.com. They always have something going on. I have always liked Cateye. They have been around forever. I still use the wired computer I got back in the early 80s. Nashbar has the Cateye CC-HR200DW (heart rate/wireless) on sale for $140, or if you want to splurge, the Garmin GPS is less than $200. I have a separate GPS unit I can use for other things besides biking, but it is nice to have a all-in-one unit. Just knowing the elevation is helpful. The things you list that are necessary to you, you can get for around $40+ (regular price) or $25+ (on sale). Good luck.
References : - Bike computers?
check here
References :
www.wiredbike.com/shop/home.php?cat=1 - Bike computers?
There are 2 companies that I think might be able to help-Naviion ande Cyclops…
References : - Running watch/pedometer?
here's one that is just barely over $50:http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000221VO0?smid=A1KI2TR7SI3MAO&tag=nextag-sports-mp-20&linkCode=asn
here's another one that's even cheaper, though it only gives you your heart rate:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00185IXJ6?smid=A2VA8L9MTC3XM2&tag=nextag-hpc-20&linkCode=asn
hope this helps! =)
References :
powered by SEO Super Comments
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
{ 6 comments }
The one you enjoy most will work best for you. Your more likely to do it.
Cycling does it for me I use it for transport, to get out of the house and to sticky beak around the neighborhood. It is also easier on the joints. Riding to a regular destination helps to stick at it.
There is an algorithm to calculate calories used from heart rate. It is quite complicated and not very accurate. You need to know, your height, weight, body mass index, your temperature, ambient temperature, Ambient pressure, height above sea level etc etc etc.
Many heart rate monitors have a simplified calorie counter built in. (if you want a guide.)
My tip is to concentrate on enjoying what you are doing. The weight comes off just the same. Doing calculations and computations doesn't burn many calories at all.
References :
OK.
Treadmills are basically running or walking (which means thy work your cardiovascular system fairly hard, as well as leg and core muslces). Bicycling works the same muscle groups, more or less (slightly different emphasis on specific leg muscles), but requires a longer distance and/or faster time to achieve the same caloric burn.
To estimate calories burned:
- A 120 pound runner jogging at a 10 minute-per-mile pace burns 205 calories in 20 minutes.
- The same person, cycling at 12 miles per hour for 20 minutes, burns 153 calories.
If your weight is different than 120, ratio your weight to the caloric burn. More weight means more energy expended to move it, so more calories burned.
If your speed is different, ratio your speed to whichever activity you are doing. More speed requires more effort, which means more calorie burn.
If you exercise for a different amount of time than that indicated, ratio your time. Longer duration means more energy, which means more calories burned.
Now … using a heart rate monitor can be a big improvement in your training as well. Operating in the anaerobic zone (80-90 % of max) will tend to burn fat, not sugar. Operating in the aerobic zone (70-80 % of max) burns a combination of sugar and fat. Operating below the aerobic threshold burns sugar first, and fat only when all the sugar reserves are gone.
References :
why not both? My most effective workout is a 50 mile ride followed by a 10 mile run.
As for heart rate vs. calories, go to a health club and get a few data points on a good bike and/or treadmill that gives you calorie burn estimates, preferrably one that requires you to enter your weight first. Any time you're at that heart rate, you're probably burning close to that number of calories. Its a rough approximation, but short of spending lots of time and money in an exercise physiology lab, that's as good as it gets.
—–
Note to cantexan: You have your zones badly jumbled.
References :
I prefer cycling to treadmills or running
cycling is less impact on your joints
and I love being out in the world rather than couped up at home or in a gym
References :
Cantexans answer is great except that he has the fuels backwards. In the aerobic zone your primary fuel source is fat, not sugar (glycogen actually, there is a difference). Once you go anaerobic, you start burning glycogen (blood sugar). this leads to lactic acid build up which will wipe you out but quick. For generic fitness and weight loss, you want to stay in the aerobic zone doing exercises that utilize the major muscle groups – glutes, quads, and hamstrings. Cycling and jogging are both highly effective for this. The benefit of cycling is that you can do it for much longer for more total calories burned per workout, though running will burn them at a higher rate.
But, like uncleneal said, get outside! what are you doing trapped on a treadmill in the middle of summer?!?!
References :
i have a mill i never use as i like a track better, i do both , bike and jog
References :
Comments on this entry are closed.