Is Treadmill or Stationary Bike Better for Losing Weight?

[biggy]

hello

I was curious if there is any significant difference in the results that come from various exercise equipment at the gym. (All in the realm of losing weight). Is the stationary bike any better at losing the pounds than running?

Say both of them were done for 20 minutes at a decent intensity, would one be a better workout?

thanks all

[The Texan]

My personal opinion about that is it doesn't matter which one it is as long as you keep your heart rate in the 70-80% BPM range. Anything above that you risk burning muscle tissue.

In order to get your target BPM all you do is take 220-your age=your max BPM. Then do 70-80% of your max. BPM is beats per minute just in case you might not know.

Hope this helps,
Texan

[71DarkHorse]

Which ever excercise you're working harder at, is the one you're burning more calories on. I'm not a fan of the treadmill, personally. I like the bike more, especially if it's the type of bike you can add resistance too. But I don't do either. I have done the bike if I'm injured or can't run. Otherwise, I simply put on my sneaks and do road running (or track, whatever). Best type of running you can do.

The treadmill doesn't really provide you will much push-off power.

The longer you run, especially after ~20 minutes, the more your body will begin to increase the energy is uses from fat stores. I would say an absolute minumum of 20 minutes per workout, the more, the better.

[biggy]

Originally Posted by 71DarkHorse

Which ever excercise you're working harder at, is the one you're burning more calories on. I'm not a fan of the treadmill, personally. I like the bike more, especially if it's the type of bike you can add resistance too. But I don't do either. I have done the bike if I'm injured or can't run. Otherwise, I simply put on my sneaks and do road running (or track, whatever). Best type of running you can do.

The treadmill doesn't really provide you will much push-off power.

The longer you run, especially after ~20 minutes, the more your body will begin to increase the energy is uses from fat stores. I would say an absolute minumum of 20 minutes per workout, the more, the better.

Does this have to do with your body looking into more "long term" sort of energy reserves when you run out of quick energy from say a sugar boost?

also - about burning muscle tissue, i made another thread:
http://www.chronicfitness.com/forum/...le-tissue.html

[71DarkHorse]

Originally Posted by biggy

Does this have to do with your body looking into more "long term" sort of energy reserves when you run out of quick energy from say a sugar boost?

also - about burning muscle tissue, i made another thread:
http://www.chronicfitness.com/forum/...le-tissue.html

I've replied to your other thread as well.

But yes, fat stores are your body's long term reserve for energy. Sugar boosts provide quick carbs for your muscles. Your body will use glycogen stores first, but will not use them all up entirely (then you wont have energy for your muscles later in the day) and will begin to use fat for energy as the longevity of your workout continues.