If you are trying to lose weight, you should be using the worst, heaviest bike possible.
It’s always hillarious to me to see boomers on expensive bikes that aim to save every gram while they could save 20kg on themselves.
somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org 3 hours ago
Well, not if you still want to have some fun while doing so.
But I agree, that a regular bike should suffice and you don’t need to worry about optimizing gear weight if you’re not competing for anything and just ride it for your own well-being.
wolfpack86@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Well, not necessarily. A bike that’s got a full carbon frame also absorbs shock and vibration from the road better. This means you can ride longer distances without getting fatigued in places like your wrists or ass. Longer rides = more exercise.
But once you have a carbon frame, chasing grams on other components gets to be a bit silly.
jeffep@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
You could also just walk whenever possible, burns more kcals/distance
_stranger_@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
That’s a stationary bike
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 7 hours ago
Perhaps that’s why they are on a bike?
psoul@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Well, it’s also fun to go places you know. If a shitty bike can only get you 20mi / 30km but a on a good one you feel confident doing a 30mi / 45km ride then the purchase makes sense.
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 3 hours ago
Or skinny dudes with enormous ballsacks wearing tight Spandex on 15 pound carbon fiber bikes, but a 20 pound motorcycle lock.