Two is that 1 m2 of a solar panel converts around 15-20% of insolation to electricity, whereas 1 m2 of random plants gets about ±0.5%, most crops around 2% and the top performer is sugarcane which is still at just 8%. Typical diet however would probably be 2% efficient crops, a lot of which is then wasted before it gets on your plate, not in the least due to a lot of agricultural output going towards animals who turn it into 'meat-energy' in another inefficient process known as life with food-conversion rates of anywhere between 1.5 feed for 1 poultry, to up to 20 to 1 for cattle.
Lastly while we have regeneration capacity in our feet when say running, when cycling downhill or breaking we regenerate nothing, whereas electric motors can have 20-40% electric regeneration efficiencies when going downhill or breaking.
In short, electric bikes and likely small electric vehicles in general probably beat cycling in terms of energy. Of course this is a pretty narrow perspective. One can argue that solar panels and electric bicycles require massive investments which is an opportunity cost for other energy-efficient processes. One can argue that the cyclists fuelled by food will reduce their other activity (e.g. going to the gym) and thus don't expand any excess energy, or that most electric vehicles today wouldn't be powered by the sun, whereas the vast majority of food (excluding some greenhouses, hydroponics and pot installations) today is. But it's also pretty clear that powering the world with plants (excluding oil etc) doesn't make sense in the long run at significant scale.
https://www.side.cr/under-the-hood-a-look-at-sidecars-on-dem...