It's weird how walking and cycling are so different

[Manc33]

I cycle quite often and never have sore muscles from it in the following days. I hardly do much walking though. I only walked one mile yesterday and the muscles at my shins are sore as hell! A few months ago I walked 2 miles in one day (walking 1 mile back from dropping my car off for its MOT then walking 1 mile back there, maybe 6 hours later) and my muscles were sore for 4 or 5 days afterwards.

It seems to not matter about cycling - if you hardly ever walk then walk 2 miles, you're going to be sore for days! It must work a totally different set of muscles, or perhaps walking (even though it barely raises your heartrate) is far more of an "impact" exercise? I can't really understand what's going on to be honest, that I can be so sore from 40 mins of walking and be not sore in the slightest from 1hr on the bike.

I worked out I burn 481 cals per hour on the bike and this is quite accurate I think because it comes from a Garmin that's taking it from the Watts output of a Wahoo Kickr that claims to be within 1% accuracy and I have kept a spreadsheet of it all, spanning 776 miles, 481 days, 77.5 hours in the saddle over 112 rides.

Walking I'd guess I burn 80 cals per mile as a ballpark figure, so walking 2 miles burns 160 cals and it takes 40 mins.

Having muscle soreness doesn't even make sense when I look at it that way. 40 mins walking burning only 160 cals causes 4 or 5 days of muscle soreness or "DOMS" as they call it, but 1hr of cycling burning 480 cals causes zero soreness, to the point I could just do that same ride every 24h.

I just asked Chat GPT all of the above and it probably did answer it in a nutshell:

"Your body weight is supported by the bike".

[Carlton green]

Cycling and walking are different, but they also have a great deal in common. This isn’t an extensive list of commonalities but they’re both:
# Leg powered.
# Good exercise which gets the heart and lungs going.
# An exercise that’s gentle on the joints (when done sensibly).
# A great way of passing through places at a speed that allows you to observe your surroundings.
# Forms of transport that have low entry costs.
# Outdoor activities that are subject to the weather.
# Activities that allow social interaction, either by stopping to greet those that we meet or by onward journeying together.
# Forms of transport that are threatened by motorised transport. *
# Forms of transport that have been displaced by motorised transport.

As I have a dog I do a lot of walking, yesterday we were out for a couple of hours but it’s often more. I’d prefer to cycle rather than walk so sometimes the dog is carried on my bike to a place where we then exercise. I also like to cycle - and when appropriate walk - over rough tracks and paths, so a mix of activities rather than one or the other. Is walking harder exercise than cycling? I’m not sure but observe that several hours walking has left me more worn than several hours cycling and that coasting down hill is something that you can’t do whilst walking (the input of effort is relentless). If one has a distant to cover then walking will both take longer and be harder work, a bike is just so wonderfully efficient at covering distance.

* With regard to threats by motorised transport the Pedestrian Society is long established, if underfunded, and now has the form of Living Streets, see: https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/about-us/our-history/

[Paulatic]

Walking I'd guess I burn 80 cals per mile as a ballpark figure, so walking 2 miles burns 160 cals and it takes 40 mins.

You’re not too far off.
I usually walk at 20 mins/ ml but two days ago I decided to up my pace to 18mins/ ml.
The results are ..

[Nearholmer]

Practice is probably the main difference. I’m out of practice walking longer distances, our dog being a little one that burns itself out after about three or four miles, and when I walked back from taking a bike to the shop for a new BB to be fitted, maybe seven or eight miles, i knew I’d done it, whereas when I worked in London i used to walk a lot, and didn’t feel it.

My brother walks a lot, energetic dog, and no longer cycles, so he’s the reverse, out of practice on a bike, and gets leg and backside aches at distances that he used to “eat for breakfast”.

[531colin]

…. I only walked one mile yesterday and the muscles at my shins are sore as hell! ………..

When your heel strikes the ground the muscles at the front/side of your shins lower your foot to the ground. Without that muscle, your foot would slap down to the ground.
There is nothing comparable going on cycling.

[gbnz]

Practice and/or adjustment of muscles, to certain workouts

- Routinely walk miles, but on 2024's Millets (Peter Storm) light weight boots being worn out; ensured I'd wear out a pair of Hi Tec light weight boots, prior to replacement (3-4 wks back). Absolute minimal difference in angle of foot to ground, resulted in noticeable muscle aches the next two days - only walked several miles, quite routinely walk 15 - 40 miles weekly
- Likewise putting Spa Tourer into storage 2-3 weeks back, with the Giant now being used, very similar in set up of saddle / handlebars / height off ground etc, etc. Absolute minimal difference in frame shapes / lengths / heights, resulted in noticeable muscles aches after the first two days of ........5 - 6 miles, moderate pace (shops. Muscles are adjusted to the Giant now)

Have been aware for years that doing a muscle building workout at a different gym, doing exactly the same workout, has to be taken for slowly for the first few days, as a lat pull at one gym, will muscles in a minutely different manner, than lat pulls elsewhere

[axel_knutt]

The main consumer of energy when walking is lifting your bodyweight with every stride. Each time you take a step your leg pivots around the ankle, so your torso follows a circular locus around the ankle, and consumes energy as it rises. Each of my steps uses about 60J in lifting my weight about 80mm, multiply that by the number of steps and it's a lot. On a bike your torso weight is supported, and the weight of the rising leg is balanced by the falling leg on the other pedal, so you're expending almost no energy beyond what it takes to propel the bike.

When walking, your foot and lower leg are working far harder than on a bike, because not only are the muscles constantly flexing to maintain your balance, especially on uneven ground, but they're also carrying your entire bodyweight. On a bike your feet are carrying very little weight and they also have the benefit of a flat platform that swivels to keep itself in contact with the sole of your foot. It amuses me when cyclists insist you need cycling shoes with rigid soles to prevent foot pain, I think they should try a bit of fellwalking on rough virgin moorland.

Walking on level ground your thigh is working less hard than cycling, but not when climbing any significant gradient. Living in Essex, it was difficult finding any ground steep enough to train my thighs for climbing with legs bent when fellwalking, so cycling made a suitable substitute.

Cycles also have gears that enable you to optimise the ratio of force to distance that your muscles experience, and this has a significant effect on their efficiency: muscles prefer a smaller force over a longer distance, but on foot they get no choice but to carry your full bodyweight.

[Traction_man]

I've set myself a target of at least 6000 steps a day (around 2.5m), which I can fit around most daily routines, and have been doing this for 4 weeks now, with an aim to keep it up til Easter... why?

Because I was finding my hamstrings and calf muscles were weak and needed strengthening, and winter riding on the bike was getting a nuisance, I am happier walking in rubbish weather than I am riding!

Hopefully this regime will get my legs in better shape to start on the bike again more come the Spring, though with a gradual build up.

I am sure my sore legs has a lot to do with bad circulation, and I have read walking is good for improving this, eg combating claudication, and since two MRIs of my leg showed up nothing musculoskeletal causing the pain, I reckon it's either neurological or circulation... we'll see.

[cyclist]

Cycling is non weight bearing, walking is:
Many people who have minor problems with their feet or legs, or have joint problems can cycle many miles, but would struggle to walk 300 yards or so.

The muscles used are different: the quads are much more involved in cycling as compared to walking. Cycling tends to burn more Kjoules (kCal) per unit time as compared with walking with comparable intensity. Cycling is a more effecient, effective and challenging form of exercise, according to the marathon handbook.

I enjoy both walking and enjoying the scenery, it is relaxing, slow, smaller distances feel like an achievement. It is quite a tedious exercise, and could get tiring, if one adds many miles, it is less of a cardio than cycling in general, owing to the classification of walking. In other words, cycling is cycling it is subclassified by discipline (track, triathlon, TT, road, adventure, gravel, touring, MTB, BMX) rather than speed, while in walking the equivalent would be walking, hiking and trekking. However, in walking there is classification by speed eg walking, jogging and running., in that sense, higher intensity walking metamorphoses (at least linguistically) to another discipline.

[sjs]

Doing both some walking and some cycling I find them to be subjectively quite similar in terms of tiredness per hour, with a factor in terms of speed/distance of about 3.5, walking at about 3.4 mph in the local Hertfordshire lowlands. Based on that, cycling uses about half the calories per mile and about twice the calories per hour.

[LittleGreyCat]

I walk more than I cycle {hangs head in shame}.
I have more than one pair of walking boots, with differences in sole construction (some now with worn down heels).
If I use the pair with the most "aggressive" soles - that is, the most rocking motion from heel to toe, I can really feel the muscles complain after the first walk or two until I adjust.
So minor differences in boots can lead to post walk stiffness.

Walking as opposed to cycling (as others have said) is a much greater change in the range and mix of muscle movement.

[cyclop]

Long ago,through painfull experience,I learnt the specificety of exercise.Whilst as a fell runner,I could jump on the bike and do a ride,now,as a cyclist,I won,t walk up the 1000ft hill on my doorstep due to really sore quads after.Half an hour over the golf course suits me fine.Managing expectations has been a challenge as I age .Every other day....riding, with a short walk in between

[Mike Sales]

Many years ago I rode to the Alps, and stayed on a rough climbers campsite. (the campsite was rough and so were the climbers). We had an impromptu football game, Brits stick. We mystified the Continentals by singing the Match of the Day theme as we ran on. I am a poor footballer but kept on running longer than the climbers, which was useful. Next day I set off for England and regretted my football enthusiasm. I had to camp half way up the first pass.

[Manc33]

I did the (1 mile) walk on Weds 22nd Jan and tonight is Mon 27th Jan - honestly it's the first night I have felt fully recovered as far as my shin muscles go, so I did a 500 cal bike ride on the indoor trainer... and beat all my previous times on that same course.

I think walking and building up those other muscles went some way towards why I beat my record. I paced myself as well, not realizing it at the time. It had been 9 days since my last ride, which is quite a hiatus for me, but I am sure that strength building I did from walking is the reason I could beat my previous best tonight.

My HR was higher and my Watts was higher (how else can the time be beaten) but I am proud of myself.

My aim is always to beat the previous time and keep heart rate the same or less, but it's very difficult to do that, it's maybe what elite athletes are capable of - but not us mere mortals. I am sticking to the same indoor bike ride on the Wahoo Kickr now and have done it 13 times. It's a balanced ride where I am going to keep doing this same ride and trying to beat my previous every time.

[pjclinch]

I have more than one pair of walking boots, with differences in sole construction (some now with worn down heels).
If I use the pair with the most "aggressive" soles - that is, the most rocking motion from heel to toe, I can really feel the muscles complain after the first walk or two until I adjust.
So minor differences in boots can lead to post walk stiffness.

What it sounds like you're referring to here is stiffness and rocker - aggressive soles are usually about depth and arrangements of the tread. The point of a stiff boot is to enable the boot to support the foot doing things like standing on small ledges or crampon points and give a bit more oomph for kicking steps in snow. Stiff boots are awkward to walk in because they don't let your feet flex as they usually do to walk, so they're often given a rocker so you can roll along a step to substitute for your foot not being able to flex much. Boots/shoes that aren't so stiff don't need a rocker built in because they flex with your feet.

Moral here is outside of stuff needing crampons you're quite likely better off in lighter footwear (weight and stiffness tend to correlate quite closely) https://www.christownsendoutdoors.com/2 ... twear.html has a good discussion.

Pete.