The new indoor/outdoor cycling craze is all well and good, but it's made us wonder what happened to good ol' jogging. We know that SoulCycle is acquiring new fanatics by the minute, but, hey, running is free — is it really worth it for us to trade in our running shoes for cycling sneaks?
Well, the good news for the runners among us, according to a recent story published in The New York Times, is that we can still enjoy the fruits of our labor — and, it turns out, running burns more calories per minute than cycling. Be careful, though, as runners are much more prone to injuries than cyclists. According to Hirofumi Tanaka, a professor of kinesiology and director of the Cardiovascular Aging Research Laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin, "Cycling is a non-weight-bearing activity, so it is better for your knees and joints, and it does not cause much muscle soreness.”
So, it turns out, you can't go that wrong with either method of cardio — do whichever you like (or a combination of both!), and give yourself a pat on the back for resisting the siren song of watching The Bridge on the couch. (The New York Times)
Photo: Via The New York TImes