Originally Posted by
RubeRad
Interesting, I hadn't considered the cost of fuel. This is problematic, because as wphamilton notes, it's the marginal cost of fuel that makes more sense, and for clydes, they often have 0 or negative marginal cost, because fuel burned by cycling is a beneficial contribution to a goal of weight loss -- vs maybe a competitive cyclist (or any cyclist not needing/wanting to lose weight) who would need to eat more to support the calories burned.
I suspect Mr Prathmann took his weight loss/gain into account, for myself there was little change during the period. I don't think you can sustainably lose fat as quickly as you burn it (calories) cycling so there has to be an additional cost of some kind, even though in the larger scheme you might come out ahead long term.
What's striking to me is that the cost of fuel can be as much, or 2 or 3 times as much, as the cost of equipment and maintenance.