WussRedXLi
Greater Supremacy Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2001
- Messages
- 95,134
- Reaction score
- 11,525
Which is faster running or cycling. And what i meant by faster.
Faster burning your fats. And slim down
So all in all, if you talk about FASTER, then running.
But cycling has 1 big advantage if you have the disposable time in your schedule (eg those bui bui who are retired or semi-retired), you can do much more volume with cycling and not kill yourself. ie overall energy burnt is more for cycling, and if you are a type of volume or brute-force exercise junkie who thrives on activity, cycling wins 100%. If you are talking about zone 1 and lower to mid zone 2 for most fats oxidation, cycling confirm wins not even debatable, just on sheer brute volume.
You dont get tired or feeling spent as much skeletally or joints/tendons etc, just muscularly it is taxing but you'd get used to it.
note : that is just volume talk, you might not improve much in overall aspects of aerobic fitness past a certain point.
But the pic whole is not so simple, even though much more energy can possibly be spent without killing yourself, your brain would definitely want to replenish it one via the hormones (eg Grehlin), so you tend to over time still take in the necessary carbs/fats whatever, hunger pangs etc. So back to zero. Unless if you are SUPER SUPER strong in willpower and after burning you can resist, and also the feeling wont be good (Ever heard of the shitty feeling that bodybuilders go through during their peak phase, this is gonna be not dissimilar).
Very very punishing one. Total shiatty feeling.
Put it this way, i used to do close to 20hrs / week vol for cycling, now i cut to maybe 10, sometimes 12.
There is no way i could do this for running, at least from an attention and "tahan" span pov (the max i dd was 16km, then 17km, 18k i totally gave up already, was an absolute suffer fest no thanks to our weather mainly and literally no wind while running compared to cycling).
So, you choose your poison.
Last edited:
