Ok, i'm going into my local town tomorrow, which is roughly 1.5 miles away. I can either walk or cycle there. Same distance.

We all know that lower intensity exercise uses more fat and less carbs, and higher intensity exercise uses more carbs and less fat for fuel. Given that the walking method would take around 3 times longer than cycling there... which method would have burnt the most fat once the journey was complete? Even though cycling would be burning more fat per minute, i'd be cycling for a much shorter time than if i were walking.

Anyone care to elaborate?

This reminds me of the word problems from back in school ... LOL

I would have to go with walking. You are supporting your whole body weight with each stride. On the bike, your weight is supported. Cycling doesn't burn a ton of calories anyway ...

Try walking 20 mins on a treadmill for 20 mins. at your walking pace, then hit the exercise bike for 20 mins at your riding pace.

Chances are, the walking will come ahead.

Hey, cool, I do a lot of walking. Every once in a while I wonder if I shouldn't get a bike, thinking I'd get more exercise that way. I always decide against it, because....I like walking!

Now I've got even more reason to walk! Thanks, Dan!

Rachel

Thanks dan! As it transpired, i walked it, and it felt good afterwards

You're definately right about burning more calories walking. Although biking will burn double the calories, walking takes a lot longer (roughly 3-4 times longer). Although i will still use biking as my primary daily exercise, since it still burns more calories in a short space.