I think the OP is curious, is all. It's a good question. Those who've replied about HR must have thought they were in some different thread. Nothing in this thread about HR or calorie calculators, etc. Too many BFers give their standard response without reading that to which they are responding.
My comment: I have no proof of anything. My WAG is that, as already commented, anaerobic glycolysis is too small a factor in the usual bike ride to make any difference in one's CO/CI ratio. Weightlifting is anaerobic, right? Not in terms of calories, because lifters spend most of their time recovering from their lifts. You can do a set of 6 X 1 X 1 max effort, which might cook you, but the intervals are so short that much of the energy will still be aerobic and it's only 12 minutes, so calorie-wise it's unimportant.
My guess is that no one here will have any hard data. @
asgelle?
Thinking about it some more, the OP suggests that aerobic energy use is 16X more efficient than anaerobic. On a really hard 60 mile group ride, I might have 15' of anaerobic time.
As we can see, the aerobic and anaerobic contributions become about equal after ~2.5 minutes of work. My max length of anaerobic effort (over VT2) is about 10 minutes, by the end of which the graph says only about 10% of energy will come from anaerobic glycolysis. Some better mathematician than I can rough out an equation and find the area under that curve. Anyway, I'm with mr_pedro.