I'm about to purchase a bicycle in the very near future and have been shopping around at different bike shops to see what I like and what they offer.
My primary goal here is to commute to work. It's a 6 mile / 9.5 km ride (each way). It's all paved road, mostly bike lanes, for the duration of the trip. And that's what I tell the sales people.
Twice now, I've been asked if I intended to use my bicycle for 'fitness'. And when I say, 'Well, sure, maybe it'd be nice to do that too...' the salesman points me away from the bigger 'commuter' bicycles and towards the smaller road bicycles (one said a road 'cruiser' would be best, the other just suggested a 'road' bicycle).
I didn't think anything of it until I was at home - but now it's bothering me. How does having a lighter, more efficient bicycle, that promotes a more aerodynamic position ENCOURAGE fitness? Isn't that the exact opposite?
Surely for any given course/distance the cyclist with the heavier, less efficient, bicycle would be working harder. I'm not a cyclist, but I do know if you go to the gym and use a stationary bicycle the more resistance you have the harder the workout.
What am I missing? Would you not get a much better workout on a heavy bike with an extra 70 pounds and sitting in an upright position....than on a top-of-the-line road bicycle?
Or is it just a reason to get me into a higher price-range?