[sternocleidom]

Running is probably the worst sport as far as caloric expenditure is concerned.

A serious endurance cyclist or swimmer will certainly go through 3000 kcal on a normal training day if not more.

I've burned an estimated 5000kcal daily on the bike for weeks. What's more is I know these numbers are very accurate as we train with power meters that record our energy expenditure with minimal error.

It's important to distinguish between serious athletes and average people who exercise. It's possible that truly competitive athletes - for instance, who run 120 miles a week to your 30 - will be much more likely to get ill from their efforts. It can take serious fitness - and a mentality acquired only by years of serious training - to push yourself to the extent that you fall ill, and maybe the recreational "athlete" described in this text can't reach that point.

[mikestew]

Running is probably the worst sport as far as caloric expenditure is concerned.

Yes, running is extremely inefficient. The most efficient form of movement known is a human on a bicycle. One's choice depends on whether the goal is to burn calories, or travel efficiently.

I've burned an estimated 5000kcal daily on the bike for weeks.

Wait a minute, what? You're going to take the most efficient form of locomotion and use that as an example of how to burn calories? The only reason you burned that many calories is because you spent all day on the bike. Maybe I'm completely missing your point, but for time spent, running burns more calories.

[iramiller]

Rate of calorie burn on a cycle is highly dependent on speed. Riding at 32km/h or higher absolutely consumes significant energy due to wind resistance.

[chrisfosterelli]

> Running is probably the worst sport as far as caloric expenditure is concerned.

This is not correct. They are relatively close, though in fact swimming on average will burn slightly less calories than running per hour of activity for most paces of comparative effort [0].

> I've burned an estimated 5000kcal daily on the bike for weeks

This is around 3.5 to 10 hours of cycling a day depending on your weight and speed... There is individual variation of course, but there is no way you are burning this many calories without A LOT of hours on the bike.

[0]: http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburned.htm

[sternocleidom]

Check this out http://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-calories-cyclists-bu...

"Each day participants ride, on average, about 100 miles and burn some 6,071 calories"

As a competitive, but still amateur cyclist I would do something in this ballpark almost every day. Hence 3000 - 5000 calories. And I'd often run for an hour or play soccer on top of this since I wasn't a pro.

I did spend a lot of hours on the bike, as serious athletes tend to do. Years of experience with myself and many other national caliber athletes tells me that we do in fact get sick from strenuous exercise, all the time.

[chrisfosterelli]

> "Each day participants ride, on average, about 100 miles and burn some 6,071 calories"

This is a very bad baseline for an average athlete. You are referring to pro athletes in a race event who average 40-45km/hr speeds on a notoriously hilly race. They don't maintain this level of exertion during training season, and an average athlete is nowhere even close to it.

> As a competitive, but still amateur cyclist I would do something in this ballpark almost every day. Hence 3000 - 5000 calories.

If you bike 160km a day, then you're cycling 4 - 6 hours a day. My original statement that you're not burning that many calories without ALOT of hours on the bike is correct.

> I did spend a lot of hours on the bike, as serious athletes tend to do. Years of experience with myself and many other national caliber athletes..

It's very impressive if you're able to sustain >30hrs week of exercise for weeks as you mention, but be cautious to not sound elitist.

[mrfusion]

Why do you think cycling would burn more calories than jogging?

[chrisfosterelli]

They are actually much more similar than most people realize. However, people usually burn more calories total on cycling because it's easier to put longer time periods into cycling than it is for running.

Put another way, an average cyclist will find a 2 hour bike ride to be an average ride but an average runner will consider a 2 hour run to be quite long.

[Buldak]

As much as I enjoy cycling, I don't have anywhere near enough time to accommodate a bike regimen equivalent to my running regimen. To my mind, the only way cycling comes out ahead of running for most people is if (1) they have an usual amount of free time (e.g. enough to go on three hour rides every day), or (2) they're unable to run without injuring themselves.

[sp332]

Jogging is very efficient, mechanically speaking. You're not going to burn a lot of calories per hour.

[smnplk]

You need to put more effort in 1 hour cycling session to burn the same amount of calories as in 1 hour running session. Running activates more muscles.

[riku_iki]

But cycling affects largest human muscles, which work more intensively..

[smnplk]

I was "professional" athlete many moons ago. When we measured max heart rate, we did it on a bike first and then on a treadmill running and then bike again. My max heart rate running was +5 beats allways and I was not a single case. I just couldn't get to my max heart rate while cycling.

[ksk]

Depends on how you look at it. I can bike all day without getting tired, but there's no way I can jog all day. If your definition of efficiency includes duration of effort, or distance covered, then cycling is very efficient.