Originally Posted by lambo_vt

Sigh. An hour on a bike is an hour on a bike. An hour on a trainer is the same. Time, not distance. If you'd like to see more there are hundreds of threads pointing out this same fact, or as I said you can verify via Analytic Cycling.

Originally Posted by Fleabiscuit

AAAAAAA!!!!! Okay, it's not an hour on a bike. We all agree the ride will take longer on the heavier bike. If he is expending 250w over a longer timeframe (distance is the same) then he will burn more calories. If he decides to strap on a backpack loaded with 100 lbs of lead weights and take the same ride, at the same 250w (this is a rate so you must mean watts per hour) output over a longer time horizon, he is expending even more energy, and burning more calories.

It's not an hour on the bike. Although the distance is the same, the time will be longer, as you correctly stated earlier, because a heavier bike is going slower at the same wattage output (assuming aerodynamics, route, etc., is the same for both bikes) and because the rider is expending the same level of energy for a longer period, he is burning more calories over the same distance.

Originally Posted by thegunner

comprehension fail. you hurt my soul.

Originally Posted by lambo_vt

Yaaaawn. Share your training insights with the pros; you apparently know something they don't.

Originally Posted by thegunner

ditto with the nobel committee, you're overdue for the physics award. somewhere, coriolis is turning over in his grave.