City Life

Clickbaity, biased and misleading title.

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.