1.f4 because it's "weakening" and your opponent will try and fail to refute it. It carries better attacking chances than 1.b4 as well
If you had to pick ONE b4 or f4 !?

I play 1.f4 exclusively as white and find that it is great because you are almost always going to get a position that you are more familiar with than your opponent.

1. f4 isn't as popular as the "main moves" but Bird's Opening is hardly considered that different; besides, 1. f4 can easily transpose into 1. e4 openings and even transposing into the King's Gambit soon is possible, so that is a plus if you play the King's Gambit as White often.
Personally, I'd probably try 1. b4
It is a lot less popular so you may surprise your opponents more than 1. f4 and 1. b4 does come with a few traps. You could call it the "Polish Opening" but I'd play 1. b4 and call it the "Orangutan Opening" - I mean how cool is that story behind the name?

For those unaware of the naming to 1. b4 as "Orangutan" was in March of 1924 (1.b4 was played a few times before then, but it was called the Polish or Sokolsky Opening). In March of 1924, Tartakower was planning his opening choice for the New York Chess Tournament. Upon visiting the Bronx Zoo, he spoke with an orangutan named Susan. The orangutan (somehow, as I am unsure of the details) conveyed to Tartakower that he should begin the game with 1. b4 and so he used it in the event later that month and had good enough success with it that the name "orangutan opening" has stuck ever since
I have to go with f4, although none of the two are following the key principles of the opening
b4 isn't objective and it doesn't control much of the central squares unlike f4. The problem with f4 though is that you weaken the king's diagonal and sometimes your king can be exposed to threats.

That happens with literally all openings where you play f4 at some point. You need to take some risk to get some chances
What is wrong with 1.f4? It is a mighty good move, as far as I'm concerned.
Exposes the king. How is that good?
What is wrong with 1.f4? It is a mighty good move, as far as I'm concerned.
refuted by 1. ....e5
The From is a good gambit, but it certainly does not refute anything. In a couple of lines, Black must play exact moves to equalize.
And if black plays f4 on the first or second move, it is a blunder. OK, I get it now.

What is wrong with 1.f4? It is a mighty good move, as far as I'm concerned.
refuted by 1. ....e5
Which is also "refuted" by taking iy

1. f4 by white is a blunder in my opinion.
You are welcome to prove it. Please, show us some forced continuation that leads to a big advantage for black.

What is wrong with 1.f4? It is a mighty good move, as far as I'm concerned.
refuted by 1. ....e5
The From is a good gambit, but it certainly does not refute anything. In a couple of lines, Black must play exact moves to equalize.
And if black plays f4 on the first or second move, it is a blunder. OK, I get it now.
Yes, because that means black has to play 1...f5 and follow up with 2...f4.
If you mean playing f5 on first or second move, it's no blunder but is a mistake since whites extra tempo matters. Take Daimianos defense, white can sac a knight and win but if white plays e4 e5 f3, black can't take advantage immediately even though he's equalized.
Which you would rather play with white and why