The short answer: at moderate or fast speeds cycling uses more energy per minute than walking, although walking uses more per kilometre. Measured knee forces are lower in cycling, and competitive road cycling has a poor record for bone density. Observational data link both to better health, with the stronger association for cycling. For most people, the best choice is whichever one you'll actually keep doing.
| Question | What we found |
|---|---|
| Calories per minute | Cycling at about 9 mph or faster rates higher than walking at 3 to 4 mph; slow leisure cycling is similar |
| Calories per kilometre | Walking uses more per distance, because cycling covers ground faster |
| Knee joint load | Measured forces were lower in cycling than walking in one implant study |
| Bone density | Competitive road cycling shows low bone density; walking is weight-bearing |
| Death rates | Cycling commuters had a stronger association than walking commuters, in observational data |
Calories
These estimates use ratings from the Compendium of Physical Activities (calories equal METs times body weight in kilograms times hours), for a 75 kg person over 30 minutes. They are averages and individuals vary a lot, especially in cycling, where wind, hills and fitness matter.
| Activity | MET rating | Calories in 30 minutes, 75 kg (extra above resting) |
|---|---|---|
| Walking, 3 mph (4.8 km/h) | 3.5 | 131 (94) |
| Walking, 4 mph (6.4 km/h) | 5.0 | 188 (150) |
| Cycling, under 10 mph (16 km/h), leisure | 4.0 | 150 (112) |
| Cycling, leisure, 9.4 mph (15 km/h) | 5.8 | 218 (180) |
| Cycling, 12 to 13.9 mph (19 to 22 km/h), moderate effort | 8.0 | 300 (262) |
| Cycling, 14 to 15.9 mph (22.5 to 25.6 km/h), vigorous | 10.0 | 375 (338) |
The earlier page's table was close at the fast end (about 300 for moderate and 400 for vigorous cycling) but the compendium offers a wide range for "leisure" cycling, from 4.0 to 5.8 METs. Per distance, the picture reverses: walking at 3 mph uses about 54 calories per kilometre in total for 75 kg, while cycling at about 12.5 mph uses about 30, because you cover ground so much faster (our arithmetic). The earlier page's claim that total daily burn for "consistent walkers and occasional cyclists often ends up surprisingly close" is untested, so we've removed it. See calories burned walking for the method.
Joints
The earlier page said walking puts "roughly 1 to 1.5 times your body weight through your knees." Direct measurements are higher: studies using instrumented knee implants have recorded tibiofemoral contact forces of about 2 to 3 times body weight in level walking (for example, a peak axial force of 2.2 to 2.5 times body weight in one study, with similar values in others). A telemetric implant study of ergometer cycling (published in JOSPT in 2012) found tibiofemoral forces smaller during cycling than during walking within the power range tested, and about 70% less at a power with similar metabolic cost to a 4 km/h walk. Those studies involved people with knee replacements and a stationary bike, so they don't show how cycling compares for someone with arthritis who is riding on the road, but they support the idea that cycling loads the knee less. If you have joint pain, a physiotherapist can advise on which suits you; walking and knee arthritis covers the walking evidence.
Bone
Cycling is not weight-bearing, and that matters for bone. A 2012 systematic review in BMC Medicine (Olmedillas and colleagues) concluded that road cycling does not appear to confer any significant osteogenic benefit, and that adult road cyclists in regular training have low bone mineral density in key regions such as the lumbar spine; other kinds of cycling, such as mountain biking, or combining it with other sports might reduce this effect. An earlier review (Nagle and Brooks, 2011) called the evidence concerning but inconsistent and of limited quality, mostly from cross-sectional studies. Most of this research is on competitive cyclists training many hours a week, so it may not apply to recreational riding. The earlier page said walking "stimulates bone density maintenance and growth." Walking is weight-bearing, but we haven't verified how much walking alone changes bone density, so we've framed this as a general principle: if bone health is a concern, include weight-bearing activity, and ask a clinician about strength training and other options.
Death and disease
In the UK Biobank commuting study (Celis-Morales and colleagues, BMJ, 2017), cycling to work was associated with lower all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.59) and lower rates of cardiovascular disease and cancer than commuting by car or public transport, while walking to work was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio 0.64) but not a significant difference in cancer mortality. Cycling is typically a higher-intensity activity than walking, which may be part of why, but this is observational and the groups differ in other ways. See walking to work. The earlier page's statements that cycling pushes the heart rate up faster while walking gives similar long-term protection through consistency are plausible, but we couldn't source them.
Weight, muscles and older adults
We haven't found head-to-head trials of walking and cycling for weight loss, so the earlier page's conclusion that walking is "usually the more practical default" is opinion; either can contribute, and the research on walking and weight loss is in does walking help you lose weight. The descriptions of which muscles each activity uses are standard and plausible, though we didn't source them here. For older adults, cycling introduces a risk of falling off a bike that walking doesn't carry in the same way, which is common sense rather than a number we can give; if balance is a concern, talk to a physiotherapist about options such as a stationary bike. See walking for seniors.
Doing both
This is our opinion. Walking needs no equipment, so it's easier to do every day; cycling gives a harder session, covers more distance and is easier on the knees. Many people use walking as the daily base and add rides when they have the time, and cycling to work, if it's safe where you live, is a common way to fit it in. If one of the two is more likely to become a habit, choose that one.
Sources
- Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Herrmann SD, et al. 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities: a second update of codes and MET values. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2011;43(8):1575-1581 (bicycling and walking ratings). pacompendium.com
- Loading of the knee joint during ergometer cycling: telemetric in vivo data. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2012. jospt.org
- Knee joint forces: prediction, measurement, and significance. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H. PMC
- Olmedillas H, et al. Cycling and bone health: a systematic review. BMC Medicine. 2012;10:168. bmcmedicine.com
- Nagle KB, Brooks MA. A systematic review of bone health in cyclists. Sports Health. 2011. PubMed
- Celis-Morales CA, Lyall DM, Welsh P, et al. Association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2017;357:j1456. BMJ (PDF)
Correction note: an earlier version of this page said walking puts 1 to 1.5 times body weight through the knees, that walking stimulates bone growth while cycling gives minimal bone benefit, that consistent walkers and occasional cyclists burn similar totals, and gave a calorie table with a single value for leisurely cycling. We replaced the knee figure with measured forces, described the cycling and bone evidence (mostly competitive road cyclists), removed the unsourced claims, and rebuilt the calories from the Compendium. The bone-density figures come from abstracts and secondary summaries, we do not have the knee-force papers' author lists, and the cycling knee study involved people with knee replacements on a stationary bike. This article is for informational purposes and does not replace medical advice. This is general information, not medical advice.