What is healthier - walking 800 metres or riding a bike 800 metres?

they are both really healthy though riding a bike that far would go faster it would work your legs more and it will make your heart beat faster so i would say that biking 800 metres is healthier

walking

I would say it depends on the resistence. Like if you’re just casually biking there maybe walking would be a better choice. But if it’s windy out then it’s definately more of a workout. TRUST ME.

I say bikeing, it uses more muscles

I say it depends on speed in both cases. If you go slow then you will not gain muscle. I mean, you can walk like granny or you can ride your bike like granny. There’s no training in that. If you go fast, then either can be sports.

And: What’s the terrain? Going up-hill on a bike will be more training than walking up-hill. Going down-hill on a bike will be less training than walking down-hill.

Undoubtedly walking. . (a) To a large extent, the value of the exercise depends on the time for which it continues - the longer the duration tyhe greater the overall health advantages. It would take about 8 minutes to walk 800 metres at a moderately brisk pace. It would only take about 2 minutes (or less) to cycle 800m.
. (b) The total “work done” is also important in determining the value of the exercise, and it is undoubtedly much more efficient to travel a distance on a reasonably well maintained bicycle. The work done in transporting your own weight plus the weight of the bicycle over 800m is much less than the work done in walking with just your own weight over the same distance - purely because of the lower efficiency of walking. . (c) The health benefits of exercise are fairly accurately measured by the total conversion of oxygen into carbon dioxide during the exercise period which is governed by the work done and calories burned during exercise. Personally I would expect to be able to cover 800m on a high quality road racing bike on level ground with either one or two lungs-full inhalations of air. I would probably need around 8 similar inhalations to cover the same distance while walking. . (d) Ignoring the calories burned as a result of the basic life processes - represented by the so called basal metabolic rate, my reference material indicates that the extra calories burned as a result of walking 800 metres over level ground fairly briskly is roughly 38kCal, this compares to only 19kCal when cycling the same distance over the same ground (assuming the same individual performs the exercises, thus having the same levels of fitness and body weight in each test case. .

– Best wishes - Majikthise. .

At the same time though it’s all about form and difficulty of the exercise. You could do push-ups that have incorrect form for 20 minutes and it won’t have much effect on you. Or you can do like 4 properly formed push-ups and it will have the same effect as the 20 done incorrectly.

Its just an average speed of walking and riding for an 14 year old girl, and the terrain is flat grass ground :)

I don’t think “form” has any bearing on the question whatsoever. It just mentions walking and cycling. Whether you use good form or bad form while walking, waling is less efficient than cycling, so it makes you do more work and burn more calories than cycling the same distance on a bicycle PROVIDED you use the best gear ratio for the terrain type - which would be a requirement of “good bicycling form”. Using bad form on a bicycle is likely to cause you to lose control and fall off the bike potentially injuring yourself - an even less healthy outcome. ….. . ….. If one changes the criteria and ask: if one regularly cycles vigorously for one hour without being involved in an accident, do the health benefits exceed the benefits of walking very briskly for one hour without mishap, I would say the cycling has greater benefits - but the term “healthier” in this instance remains ill-defined. For instance cycling for one hour is more likely to expose you to risk of air pollution from exhaust fumes. 800 metres on level grassy terrain is going to make so little difference as to suggest they are equally unlikely to provide any measurable health benefit in practice - and the issue would boil down to arbitrary accidents that might occur - in which case the cycling option remains the less healthy option because of the possibility of getting caught in the moving metal drive assembly, or falling off.