To cycle, or run or walk – that is the question
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/ask-well-is-it-better-to-bike-or-run/
I recently came across this article in the New York Times, which briefly discusses the pros and cons of common exercise. I thought I would lay out some of the reasons for choosing or avoiding various forms of aerobic exercise. The three forms of exercise that were compared were walking (6kph), running (14kph), and cycling (28kph).
Firstly, there is weight management. Running is the winner here at 1,000 calories per hour, cycling is close at 850, and walking consumes only 360. Clearly the high-intensity workouts are best. Note also that you need to walk for nearly three times as long as you would run if you wanted to burn the same amount of calories.
In addition, running and cycling (as high-intensity workouts) cause lower blood levels of ghrelin, a hormone linked to hunger, so act as appetite suppressants as well. However these two more strenuous exercises compare very differently when considering impact – as cycling does not involve weight-bearing, injuries and muscle soreness are far less common among cyclists than runners. Walking is by far the least strenuous, of course!
The characteristic shared by all exercises is a positive effect on wellbeing – aerobic exercise leads to cardiovascular fitness, which is linked to lower risk of chronic diseases and an increased lifespan. Additional motivators for us at The Fix Program are that fit people experience less pain, have improved mental health and sleep better.
As with any form of exercise, combining them with a core stability, postural and stretching program (such as Pilates) can reduce risk of injury and improve performance by ensuring your body is working in optimal, stable balance as you train. There is no 'best choice' of exercise to pair with such a program and achieve all these benefits – any form, or even a variety, can be modified to best suit your preferences, safety and weight loss needs.
Author Tabitha Webb
