Needs More Cycling

I don't think I could've shown myself a more stark contrast this morning between running and cycling. I went out and did 20 miles on the bike just now, came back in and plugged in the heart rate monitor to download the data, and it turns out I was out cycling for less than a minute less than the time I ran yesterday (1:09:35 cycling cersus 1:09:43 running). Perfect way to compare the two.

The starkest difference, and the one that I knew was there but hadn't had matching data quite like this, was calories burned. Now, I know it's an average, a suggestion based on my height and weight and all that, but the running showed 826 calories burned, and the cycling showed 1,278 calories burned. Meaning in their estimate running burned only 2/3 as many calories as cycling did. No wonder I was losing all the weight last spring when I was cycling all the time! (and yes, the running and swimming helped, too, I'm sure, but still)

This tells me I need to stop staying up so late and get my tail out on the bike more often in the morning.

Originally published at Of Moose And Men.