How We Compare
Cycling MET at 16 km/h ≈ 6.0; walking at 5 km/h ≈ 3.5.
Same formula: Calories = MET × kg × hours. Cycling wins per hour because MET is higher.
Weight-bearing matters: walking loads the skeleton (bone-density signal); cycling doesn't.
Bone density & posture
Weight-bearing activity like walking triggers osteoblast activity — cycling doesn't. If you're over 40 or peri-menopausal, walking has an edge on skeletal health.
Time efficiency
Cycling covers ~4× the distance per hour. If your goal is calories-per-minute or exploring the countryside, cycling wins.
Injury profile
Cycling is very low-impact but can cause knee/back issues if the fit is poor. Walking is nearly injury-proof at low volumes.
Walking vs Cycling — 1 Hour
| Weight | Walk kcal | Cycle kcal (mod.) | Cycle kcal (vig.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 55 kg | 193 | 330 | 495 |
| 70 kg | 245 | 420 | 630 |
| 85 kg | 298 | 510 | 765 |
| 100 kg | 350 | 600 | 900 |
Walking MET 3.5; moderate cycling MET 6.0; vigorous cycling MET 9.0.
Key takeaway
Cycling wins on calories per hour and distance; walking wins on steps, bone density, and near-zero injury risk. Both together is best.
Want your exact number?
Real-Life Scenarios
The commuter
Cycling saves time and torches calories, but adds no steps. Consider mixed weeks (bike 3 days, walk 4).
The 55-year-old
Walking + 2 strength sessions/week beats cycling-only for bone density and balance.
The knee-sensitive walker
Cycling is ideal on flare-up days — cardio benefit without joint load.
In summary: Cycling wins on calories per hour and distance; walking wins on steps, bone density, and near-zero injury risk. Both together is best.