I looked at my last 2 workouts on my watch
Cycle: total time 1:47, active calories 1,034kcal, total calories 1,211kcal , average HR=137 (dist 40.36km)
Walk: total time 1:27, active calories 528kcal, total calories 674kcal, average HR=106bpm (dist 5.78mi)
This would suggest that cycling is far more efficient in terms of calories burned per hour.
Is this likely to be right?
I must admit this contradicts what I had assumed, because I thought of cycling as a fairly 'efficient' method of travel. Walking, not being a wheeled vehicle, is more inefficient, and thus I'd assumed it burned more calories.
If I have a certain limited time out of the day, say 2 hours, and I want to burn as many calories as possible in that time, am I best off going for a walk, or a bike ride?
If my muscles are fairly used to cycling compared to walking, is that going to mean I burn fewer calories per hour cycling compared to walking?
Is calories burned per hour largely just a function of how elevated the heart rate is?
Or, are there other factors that can increase the amount of calories burned per hour for a given HR? Does cold/hot weather increase calories burned per hour, for the same heart rate, for instance?
I guess the answer for some people the optimum answer for calories per hour efficiency would be 'running': not for me, personally, as I don't want the knee damage. But curious to know how it rates in comparison just out of interest.