I don’t care what people ride. If they want an ebike then that’s great. More people on bikes is better for everyone-- less cars on road, more cyclist awareness, better walkable/biking infrastructure, etc.
But it is very misleading to say ebikes get more exercise. Where is the data? How are they quantifying exercise? Watts are watts, so you’ll need to work the same for those watts regardless of the type of bike you’re on. Your ‘Time in The Saddle’ may be higher with an ebike if the less work makes it more appealing to you, but you’re only getting more exercise if you put out more watts than you would have on a traditional bike.
Separately, if someone is really motivated to exercise more, the type of bike is not the factor. It is their time. Ride any bike you want but at some point you’ll need less endurance rides and more intensity. The best way for intensity is doing it all yourself. Ebike might help with the recovery intervals but it isn’t going to be the main consideration in your workout.
I just skimmed the article and agree that it’s misleading without context or data. I didn’t look hard to see if it actually gave any.
That said my personal experience is that I get far more exercise with my ebike because I’m in the saddle more often. I rode my normal bike maybe once or twice per summer. I’m not into it as a sport or hobby, and there are too many hills and stop signs/lights that you actually have to stop at, which means struggling to get going when you have to jet out between cars. I don’t have billions of hours training my thighs into galactus legs so I can take off uphill in 6th gear. And let’s just be honest: I’m never going to.
My ebike solve those problems. As a result I’ve packed in a couple hundred miles in just the first year I’ve had it. So for me it very much is a case of fewer calories per mile but more miles overall exercised.
The article actually claims that, on average, e-bikers have a higher volume of exercise per week compared to cyclists. (This includes both METs, a measure of metabolism, and duration.) Even this claim seems a bit shaky, though.
It wasn’t clear in the article how the studies categorized cyclists and e-bike users. I took a look at one of the linked studies and found that they categorized them like so:
The distinction of e-bikers vs. cyclists was based on the following question at the baseline: “What type of bicycle do you use?”. Respondents stating that they used an e-bike were categorized as e-bikers, independent of whether they also used a conventional bicycle. Using this classification around the half of e-bikers only use e-bike while the other half use additionally a different type of bicycle. Users who reported any use of non-electric bicycle (including city bike, mountain bike or bike-sharing) but not e-bike were categorized as cyclists, those who did not report any bicycle use, as non-cyclists.
A few issues I see:
Cyclists who also own an e-bike are only counted as e-bikers, which is a potential bias, since any and all exercise they do is being included.
Other types of biking can (and often are) more strenuous, therefore recovery time may be higher.
E-bikes are relatively new, so many e-bikers likely purchased them more recently. People tend to use recent purchases more.
Luckily, the study didn’t base it solely on “ownership”, so the many people with old bikes sitting dormant in their garage don’t count.
Also, in this study, cycling was given a constant 6.8 METs and e-biking, 5 METs. These are not constant activities; cyclists going uphill are likely going to be > 8 METS (the threshold for vigorous activity), and e-bikers using throttle-enabled bikes are likely far below 5 METs.
In fact, according to the other study, pedal assisted e-bikes don’t always break the threshold for moderate activity under low and moderate assist levels:
Further, while the cardiometabolic responses (e.g., HR and V̇O2) were lower for the e-bike, they were indicative of being at or near “moderate intensity[…]”
The first study assumes 4 METs as moderate activity and 8 METs as vigorous. 5 seems like a high estimate, then, since the second study showed that e-bikes with assist aren’t always at moderate intensity, let alone throttle.
Aside from the studies, the article itself mentioned that many cyclists take a lift to the top of trails. I enjoy mountain biking, and none of the trail systems near me have a lift. And a big reason I ride is for exercise, strength and endurance. Just me? Also, throttle e-bikes can damage dirt trails, they are completely banned at one of my local trail systems.
Anyways, this article comes from a website all about EVs and similar. And there’s an affiliate link at the bottom to buy e-bikes. It’s not a secret that they’re biased.
All of that said, e-bikes are a really great tool. I’m not against them at all! They make biking far more accessible to people who would otherwise have a hard time doing so. And they’re a great method of transportation, since they make it easier to travel farther than on regular bicycles and are more eco-friendly than cars and motorcycles.
I think this article just perpetrates the divide between cyclists and e-bikers. They’re both forms of exercise and transportation, and someone using pedal assist for themselves doesn’t change what the cyclist is doing. Do what’s best for you, for you.
In my experience, a lot of e-bike users have them to facilitate long commutes by bike. If they’re on pedelecs, they probably bring up the average, especially since someone who chooses a long e-bike commute over a train or car is likely to be pretty active in other ways.
Also they’re used a fair bit by old people. I’m not sure how that group would compare for bike exercise vs e-bike exercise though.
It’s a weird shame there’s this animosity thrown around at ebikes. If you’re riding two wheels and being courteous to your fellow vulnerable road users, it shouldn’t matter if there’s a little electric motor running too.
I’m just happy they’re getting out there and showing their family and friends that they can do it too.
The thesis of the article works to fix anti-ebike attitudes. It makes some good points but it wasn’t intended to influence people on what suits them personally.
The shame of it is that a lot of people just read headlines. I sure as hell don’t have time to read every article I encounter. So those who just read the headline will walk away a bit misinformed. OTOH, the click bait actually works to get more people to read the article. It forced me to read it. So it’s hard to say if it does more damage or more benefit overall.
Indeed as someone who straddles two places of living I can attest to that. When living in a relatively flat city I’m cycling everywhere (on e-bike until it was stolen, then on cheap muscle bike thereafter). My other place of living is extremely hilly. Used a muscle bike and quickly said “fuck this, I’m done”. Just like the article said about hills on the trails. And since I cannot justify the cost of an e-bike in that particular place/situation, I do not cycle at all when living there. But if an e-bike had been cost effective I would be getting more exercise in that area.
Of course, riders who use a throttle-enabled electric bike won’t reap the same level of benefits as pedal assist e-bikes that still require pedaling, though the outdoor benefits are still measurable even when using a throttle.
Ahhh yes…they get more exercise but don’t have any of the same benefits of you actually do the work yourself. Thanks useless article for pointing out why ebikes give more exercise but then claim it’s actually worse…but not really…but really…
Add comment