No, you are talking a load of hogs wash. I put the biggest contextual indicator into perspective for you. TIME.
It is about time. The other factor is IMAGE. Self image to be exact. People who exercise do not want to look like a cyclist. I've met the cyclists at the gym who moan about not being able to pack on weight. The naturally skinny guys who should be cyclists. Everyone else cannot do what they do and get a low body fat % and that is exactly why the fitness industry does not advocate what pro cyclists do. The two are counter productive.
So for the pros it is all about time. With Joe Blow in the gym, over weight with a BMI near 30 and of average height, working 8 hours a day in a 40 hr week, your option is invalid. He does what I said and he drops weight, gains lean muscle mass and he gets the body he wants. The one where he can lift and take his shirt off and not get mocked for being skinny. Now the last part isn't relative for most people, but who on God's Green Earth wants to look like a pro cyclist when they can look like Adonis? Only the pros.
I know. I've done both. Not saying you were wrong, it's fine if you have the time and want to look like a cyclist. I like the purely aerobic approach, but anaerobic, with High Intensity Interval Training via resistance and weights, just like Cross Fit does, is the Fitness Industry trend. Long sub maximal cardio on a bike is not. Thus the nutritional component to maintain a 6-10% body fat percentage for your average folk is not the same. I never said you couldn't do it, I implied it was absurd to waste your time trying. Hence why all the guys Down Under, like Blackcat said last week, are gym buffs. Image to them is the bigger component. Cycling's approach only works for pros or people with way too much spare time. For me, I drop more weight if I add in more cardio. More than what the industry hard cores do. But that is my body. I lose a lot of body fat if I do weight training mixed with 45-60min pure cardio spells. Where as the fitness trend now, is to do them together, ala Cross Training. I don't like the group component of that.
The actual hardest part to follow, for most people, is the diet. They have the time for the fitness approach for exercise expenditure, but need to do pro cyclist level times to get away with what they eat. Well at least half of what they do. Do they? Nope. Once you get to a nice body weight with a body fat % it's easier to maintain. But for dropping it? The cycling method is not efficient enough for a high enough portion of those willing to exercise. Hence why the fitness industry focuses on HIIT. It's a modern dilemma. Now if this were 100 years ago, even 50-60 years ago I'd disagree. But it isn't. It's 2013 with bad nutrition, high energy processed foods and governments who love workers slaving forever during their working week. That is why I am saying you are wrong and it's a load of BS. It's simply UNACHIEVABLE for most people. Not for you? Fine, then you're lucky. But you are the exception, not the rule and this is majority rules. It always is with a total population topic. You alluded to all of this with market forces and economics. That comes down to time. You should have qualified what you said, or at least thought of what the average person can and is able to do in their daily exercise regime. That amounts to very specific and tailored plans, aka, not what cyclists do. The world would be better if people could spend hours riding a bike, but that ain't gonna happen.