Originally Posted by Happy Feet

Yes and no. The minimum required effort is a more or less consistent increase in effort throughout the exercise time every time additional input is required. Not a once only threshold to overcome. To compare it would be like using a programmable exercise machine that changes intensity for a workout. You can run it at 5 effort level or 10 (the difference being resistance applied). Generally speaking, as long as you can perform the task correctly, you would get a better workout using the machine at higher resistance.

Exercise is work against resistance. If we accept that premise then spending more for a bike that is designed to reduce resistance is counter to the stated goal. Racing bikes are not designed for exercise, they are designed to win races by reducing the input required or maximizing the input supplied (six of one/half dozen of the other).That was my premise in the other thread. When professional cyclists train, they tend not to use their race day bikes. Professional runners also do not usually train in their race shoes.

What muddied the waters in the other thread was the exaggerated comparisons between high end bikes and low end bikes. Again, I argue that there needs to be a certain base level of functionality to gain benefits from both. If comparing running to cycling there needs to be a certain base level of functionality. Running or biking up a 45 degree incline would not make sense (for example) because one would gas out before any longer term benefits would come into play. Similarly, comparing a race oriented bike to a department store beach cruiser would also not work.