Originally Posted by
Trakhak
In that case:
I ride for 30 miles on my 18-pound TT bike. I use an 85" gear and maintain a cadence of 85 and a power level of 225 watts. Takes me 2 hours. I burn 800 calories.
The next day, I ride for 20 miles on my 38-pound old Schwinn touring bike. I use a 70" gear and maintain a cadence of 85 and a power level of 225 watts. Takes me 2 hours. I burn 800 calories.
The distance is irrelevant. The weight of the bike is irrelevant.
Edit: there is one special case in which the arguments of U.R. and like-minded logicians apply, sort of. That is the case of direct head-to-head competition with other riders on hilly terrain.
Of course, that case also explains why competitive riders ride the lightest bikes they can afford. Riding a heavier bike won't result in a better workout if you burn yourself out trying to keep up and have to limp home.
I'm no expert on this, but I suspect that there's at least a slight difference in the muscles you're working with the tt bike vs. the touring, but that has more to do with the different riding positions than anything to do with weight. So if you're wanting to balance development of your lower body muscles, this could be an argument for n+1.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this, I really don't worry about such things enough to investigate them.