Don't get a shitty bike if you want exercise. Shitty bikes are unpleasant to ride, making the experience not fun, and discouraging you from doing more (and longer duration) riding.
Also, safety is important, and shitty bikes are less safe.
This response to the person ahead of you makes me think you either don't know much about bikes or you missed their point.
I think we all agree, buy something shitty and you get shit, especially with things you put between you and the earth. A medium quality bike, which costs an order of magnitude less than a "fancy" bike, will do literally everyone who isn't a cat 1-2 racer fine, objectively. Price difference is $1-5k for a mid range vs $10-20k for top of the line.
I don't think anyone is advocating for $300 walmart bikes here.
I don't understand your objections, nor do I see how you can infer that I don't know much about bikes.
Yes, the person I was replying to was advocating for department store quality bikes. I don't see how you can interpret it any other way. He literally said "shittiest heaviest bike you can find", not "$1-5k medium quality bike".
You could win the tour de france doing the road stages on a medium quality bike. (if you put good tires on it). Also given your price range, some of the objectively best bikes (meets weight minimum, good aerodynamics) are in the $5k range, and the more expensive ones are worse but have big name value!
That's definitely not true...at the level of the TDF, every gram of excess weight matters, and there's a vast weight difference between a cheap $5k bike and a "fancy" $20k bike.
If you're not at the TDF level, there's no point in spending more than $2k on a bike since the difference in weight won't matter.
It is true because weight is limited by the UCI limits. The bikes are so light now some riders have had to resort to adding extra weights to their bikes to pass the UCI inspection. The best rider on a $5k or $20k bike will still be in the mix regardless. I'd say they could even get away with a $2k bike.
It's not so much the weight but aerodynamics. The top aerobikes (not timetrial bikes) use about 10-20% less power than a non aerobikes at a speed of 45km/h (which is not a high speed during racing). That has actually been the big innovation in the last 5 years, the realisation that aero is more important than weight, except for the most extreme mountain stages. All the big manufacturers are now making aerodynamically optimized bikes.
Actually the rules restrict minimum weight and they often have to add ballast. And reducing weight does have diminished returns at some point, particularly on flatter sections. I think the weight obsession is more aimed at selling to amateurs than making pros faster.
Also, safety is important, and shitty bikes are less safe.