[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.