Cycling or walking - which is more efficient?
Discussion
I don't know if this is Science, Health Matters, Pedal Powered... or what the heck, but here goes:
Which is the more efficient form of transport, eg, which method allows you to cover the same distance, same journey, for the least amount of energy/calories expended?
My thoughts are:
Surely humans have evolved to make walking incredibly efficient. If you cycle instead, you have the added weight of the bike to move, the added friction of moving bicycle components and the tyres on the road, and you also have a degree of wind resistance at cycling speed, which is clearly negligible at walking pace.
I get that a bicycle will greatly reduce the journey time and therefore the energy expenditure time, but surely the energy expenditure itself will be vastly increased on a bicycle?
I tried googling this, but got all kinds of different answers, mostly around burning calories for expertise. Some websites suggested that a journey on a bicycle actually saved calories vs walking, but I just can't believe that given the things I listed above about bicycle friction, added weight etc.
Which is the more efficient form of transport, eg, which method allows you to cover the same distance, same journey, for the least amount of energy/calories expended?
My thoughts are:
Surely humans have evolved to make walking incredibly efficient. If you cycle instead, you have the added weight of the bike to move, the added friction of moving bicycle components and the tyres on the road, and you also have a degree of wind resistance at cycling speed, which is clearly negligible at walking pace.
I get that a bicycle will greatly reduce the journey time and therefore the energy expenditure time, but surely the energy expenditure itself will be vastly increased on a bicycle?
I tried googling this, but got all kinds of different answers, mostly around burning calories for expertise. Some websites suggested that a journey on a bicycle actually saved calories vs walking, but I just can't believe that given the things I listed above about bicycle friction, added weight etc.
Cycling is way more efficient and kinder on most joints (depending on terrain)
https://pedalchile.com/blog/cycling-vs-walking
https://pedalchile.com/blog/cycling-vs-walking
Edited by vaud on Friday 2nd August 20:31
six wheels said:
Have you ridden a bike?
A bicycle can freewheel. Most people cannot.
You may be overthinking this.
Yes, I do indeed own a bicycle! Rarely used, but a bicycle nonetheless. I have no doubt I am overthinking this, but it's a Friday evening and I have little else to think about.A bicycle can freewheel. Most people cannot.
You may be overthinking this.
This all started because I sometimes walk to my friends house for a few drinks, and he suggested that cycling would be less effort, and certainly faster than walking, however I wasn't sure about the 'less effort' part.
A bicycle is one of the most efficient machines we've ever devised!
Minimal drivetrain losses, light weight, low friction, and you can freewheel for ages on any flat or downhill surface. And yet you can also deliver enormous amounts of power where needed for a burst of speed.
The only place you might lose out to running or walking is going uphill, although that tends to be more arduous on a bike as you're aiming for a higher speed than walking. That said, outside of the works of M.C. Escher uphills tend to be matched by downhills at some point, and bicycles are very good at making use of all that stored-up potential energy.
Minimal drivetrain losses, light weight, low friction, and you can freewheel for ages on any flat or downhill surface. And yet you can also deliver enormous amounts of power where needed for a burst of speed.
The only place you might lose out to running or walking is going uphill, although that tends to be more arduous on a bike as you're aiming for a higher speed than walking. That said, outside of the works of M.C. Escher uphills tend to be matched by downhills at some point, and bicycles are very good at making use of all that stored-up potential energy.
trickywoo said:
If you are even reasonably fit you can do 100 miles in a day on a bike.
Pretty much nobody is walking or running that even in a full 24 hour period.
Yes, I know guys who go out on a Saturday and do 80-100 miles just for fun. I mean, being a lazy person, that absolutely blows my mind, but there you go.Pretty much nobody is walking or running that even in a full 24 hour period.
My question was not about the ability to cover distance, it was about the calories. I was assuming, perhaps wrongly, that an ordinary person would burn say 100 calories per mile, but a cyclist would burn 120 calories per mile as they were going a lot faster, if you see what I mean.
I recently learned that there is such a thing as a biological motor, but as far as I am aware nature has never found a way to make a wheel and bearings. The best it has managed is to turn the entire organism into a wheel of sorts so that those organisms can travel over land - for example tumbleweed, which is powered by the wind. Possibly various small insects such as woodlice and possibly also armadillos.
But if nature had found a way to make wheels, it probably would have, given the incredible structures like brains, eyes, ears, muscles, DNA etc that have evolved over billions of years. Of course most organisms that need to travel great distances without expending much energy have turned to either swimming or flying, so it wasn't necessary to evolve wheels.
But it's clear for many reasons that cycling is far more energy efficient than walking. I can walk about 20 miles in a day, but it will take me all day, my feet will hurt and I'll be very tired at the end of it. I can easily and casually cycle that distance in less than and hour and a half and the only ache will be my bum. The answer is clear!
But if nature had found a way to make wheels, it probably would have, given the incredible structures like brains, eyes, ears, muscles, DNA etc that have evolved over billions of years. Of course most organisms that need to travel great distances without expending much energy have turned to either swimming or flying, so it wasn't necessary to evolve wheels.
But it's clear for many reasons that cycling is far more energy efficient than walking. I can walk about 20 miles in a day, but it will take me all day, my feet will hurt and I'll be very tired at the end of it. I can easily and casually cycle that distance in less than and hour and a half and the only ache will be my bum. The answer is clear!
Mont Blanc said:
Smooth tarmac. Mild changes in elevation.
Easy win for the bike. The physics is simple; for any biped, movement on foot involves a lot of "up and down" lifting of body weight, so it's relatively inefficient. On wheels it's horizontal only. And that's before we even contemplate the gearing a bike can bring to the party.Watch a dog or a cheetah run, most of the energy is deployed horizontally.
If wheels didn't make sense for humans there wouldn't be so many around. I'm not quite so sure about lycra.
According to this page, a Monarch butterfly has been confirmed to travel 265 miles in one day. I would be surprised if such a tiny creature was able to use more than a few calories in a day, but I'd also be very surprised if no air mass currents (AKA wind) were involved.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/27411...
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/27411...
trickywoo said:
If you are even reasonably fit you can do 100 miles in a day on a bike.
Pretty much nobody is walking or running that even in a full 24 hour period.
Back in 1983 in the inaugural Sydney Melbourne marathon, Cliff Young at 61 years old, ran the 544 miles in 5 days 15 hours and 4 minutes.Pretty much nobody is walking or running that even in a full 24 hour period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Young_(athlete...
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff