[sw030695]

I think running is attractive because it's one of the most effective sports at burning energy, and it's entry level. Shoes, and some loose clothes.

In the past I've lost weight from a bunch of different sports and running worked the best. It's just the most intense pure sport, without mechanical assistance.

[Someone1234]

> most effective sports at burning energy

I'm pretty sure it is one of the least effective sports at burning energy. Humans have evolved to be highly efficient runners, therefore we exert less energy when we run (plus compared alternative we're under-using our upper bodies). Swimming is almost certainly the most effective sport for burning energy.

That being said: Losing body fat from exercise is a bad strategy anyway. Exercise is important for improved health, improved aging, combat certain diseases (like metabolic syndrome), etc. But the maths alone shows that you cannot out-run a bad diet, one McDonald's meal is more than an hour of moderate exercise regardless of type.

Body fat is lost in the kitchen, fitness is gained at the gym, people mix those two things up regularly.

[michaelt]

> I'm pretty sure it is one of the least effective sports at burning energy.

Depends on how fast you run :)

According to [1] in terms of calories burned by a 155-pound person in 30 minutes:

Running at 5mph is equivalent to beach volleyball, ice hockey and basketball, at 288 calories.

Running at 6mph is equivalent to kickboxing, cycling at 15 mph, vigorously swimming laps or vigorous step aerobics at 360 calories.

If you're lucky enough to be able to run a 10mph for 30 minutes (which is fast) doing so is one of the fastest ways to burn calories, burning 562 calories. The only thing listed that uses more calories is cycling >20mph.

Of course, people with their weight under control have a much easier time achieving higher speeds - someone who weighs 230 lbs isn't likely to be running at 10 mph, and they'll probably hit their weight goal before they'll hit that speed.

I agree with you that, with 270 calories in a chocolate bar, it's easy for bad diet to undo the benefits of exercise.

[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/diet-and-weight-loss/calories...

[rconti]

[citation needed]

I've spent a lot of time running and cycling, and personally, I can burn 800 calories an hour running, and 600 cycling. I can easily sustain heartrates of 150-160bpm but struggle to break 130 swimming.

Found a few source that also put running at the top.

https://revelsports.com/which-sport-burns-the-most-calories/

[Someone1234]

Your link is to an autogenerated content farm. So [Citation Needed] from you too. Here's an actual source:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/diet-and-weight-loss/calories...

Running at normal sustained speeds is only 240-336, Elliptical is 270-378, Aerobics 300-420, Stationary Bicycling 315-441, etc.

Keep in mind 6 MpH is considered Vigorous, and you're talking about 10 MpH sustained to get good calorie burn which just isn't realistic outside competitive levels or for short sprints (which isn't what we're discussing).

[rconti]

I'm sorry that you found the one source I posted was a content farm, because I found numerous others saying the same thing.

The link you posted is an absolute joke that you're cherry picking, because the only reason to put "Bicycling, Stationary: vigorous" above "normal sustained speeds" is because you made the utterly inaccurate editorial decision to do so. You're flat out wrong if you believe a 12 minute mile (which is barely walking speed) is equivalent to "vigorous stationary cycling".

If you consulted your own chart you'd see it lists, under "training and sports activities", "Bicycling >20mph" as 693cal for a 185lb person and "Running: 10mph (6min/mile)" as 671cal which at least is close to accurate.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to be remotely familiar with the physiological demands here, so I don't know what to say. Your argument was that running couldn't possibly burn more calories because it only involved the lower body.

[deebosong]

Gotta agree.

I kinda dread running (but will do it, and like having done it after the fact but during the runs is another story).

But in terms of being able to run anytime (with the right layering), anywhere (more or less, so long as you can avoid traffic), and with basically minimum barrier to entry in terms of gear, it's hard to beat when comparing it to other sports & fitness activities.

I still much rather would ride my bicycles hard, but I can't deny the barrier to entry is significantly higher, even if you're aiming for budget bikes (the learning curve is kinda steep in being able to spot a decent deal), let alone higher-end stuff. But oh, is it a sublime and beautiful experience on the bike.

[misterspaceman]

Agreed! And to your point, I tried to include a couple of activities with a low barrier of entry in my above post. You could argue that bodyweight-only YouTube workouts have an even lower barrier of entry than running (you don't even need shoes!).

Also, a small nitpick: if someone is starting from zero, I'd argue "effectiveness" probably shouldn't be the goal...it should be finding an activity the person loves and wants to keep doing. From my own experience: For years I hated fitness and avoided it at all costs...until I found a gym with group fitness classes that I fell in love with. From there, losing weight was easy because I was just doing something I loved.