Which is Better: Biking or Running?

by Lexi Petronis

In some sort of weird world where there existed nothing but biking or running for exercise--which would you choose?

It's a matter of personal preference, of cours--maybe you can't stand spin class, or running bores you to tears--or you may have knee or back problems that could keep you from doing one or the other. But, according to the New York Times, there are very specific benefits to both...broken down like so!

See more:Olivia Wilde's Dos and Don'ts of Getting Older

Biking:
* Burns fewer calories per hour than running (a 150-pound person cycling at 16 to 19 miles per hour burns about 850 calories).
* A gentler workout than running, at least for your joints and the weight-bearing parts of your body.
* Vigorous cycling may lower levels of ghrelin, the hormone that stimulates your appetite (meaning you won't be as hungry).

Running:
* Generally burns more calories per minute than cycling (a 150-pound person running a 7-minute mile--which is really, really fast--burns about 1,000 calories per hour).
* Has been shown to be the source of more injuries than cycling.
* Vigorous running may also quell your appetite.

See more:The 10 Prettiest Hair, Nail and Makeup Looks for Fall 2013

In the end, I totally agree with the NYT's conclusion: Do what works for you. After all, we exist in a world where there are lots of different ways to work out and stay active. Mix it up! That'll keep boredom at bay--an important thing if you want to stay motivated.

Which would you choose: cycling or running (or none of the above)?

More fromGlamour:
25 Celebrity Hairstyles That Will Make You Want Bangs
10 Wardrobe Essentials Every Woman Should Own
15 Hair-Color Makeover Ideas to Try in 2013
8 Workout Moves for a Toned Body in Two Weeks