Study shows e-bike riders get more exercise than cyclists
electrek.co
electrek.co
(From the linked study.)
This leaves out the Netherlands and Denmark, two countries with a well-established habit of riding bicycles and world-leading, exemplary infrastructure that focuses on cyclist and pedestrian safety.
I would love to know what the increasing popularity of e-bikes does here in the Netherlands, because as a casual observer it seems to me that a lot of people who use them hardly pedal at all; depending on battery power for what seems like the biggest part of the load.
While there are indubitably a good number of folk (elderly in particular) who can now stay mobile using e-bikes in a manner that stimulates using your muscles for much longer, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that there is a large group of people who uses e-bikes to stop using quite as much energy as well — to the detriment of their health. I.e., most people in developed countries don't meet the daily minimum of exercise; the Dutch habit of riding bicycles for almost anything that doesn't require distances over 10km keeps a lot of people on the healthy side of that requirement.
E-bike are attractive, because parking cars and mopeds is much more bothersome; bicycle racks are everywhere.
I also get to bike alongside the canal as part of my commute, whereas before it was a mere glimpse through the buildings and trees from the roadside.
I would not be biking without my eBike, Seattle's hills are too extreme for people who don't have strong chevrolegs.
As an immigrant to The Netherlands it seems to me the Dutch hardly pedal at all; depending on the flatness of the terrain to most of the work for them :)
That's a bit snarky, but I think there's a lot of truth to it. One reason the Netherlands and Denmark are so disproportionately bicycle friendly is their natural terrain and climate.
E-Bikes serve as an equalizer in that regard and encourage bicycle use. More people can now bike on days where it would otherwise be too hot or rainy (arrive soaked in sweat), too windy (ditto), or where the destination is too far away to arrive in a reasonable time on a non-assisted bicycle. Those people would otherwise have used some motorized form of transport.
Would also love to see the study extended to those countries to find out.
I think Belgium ( Flanders) is close enough. A lot of bike riding here too
I've biked on both, ~300 km.
Yeah, may be true what they found. But may also be not very relevant. It absoltely doesn't say that getting an e-bike will make you exercise more.
Here's a theory what might be going on: E-Bikes are relatively expensive. So if you buy an E-Bike you're probably relatively determined to actually use it. There are on the other hand plenty of people that own a cheap bike and use it very rarely.
There's no real reason not to do a proper study on the question: Take a reasonably large number of volunteers, randomly assign them to "we give you a fancy bike" or "we give you a fancy e-bike" group and then measure their exercise and health levels. There are situations where doing such a randomized trial is unethical or pracitcally impossible. Here it really is not. If someone's doing a study with observational data where you could do a randomized trial you should be skeptical.
Seems like you have the blueprint for the "perfect" counter-study: compare e-bikers only to people who spent about as much on a conventional bicycle and you select for moderate fitness nerds who will routinely output more power than e-bike and e-biker together and spend many hours per week training. The results will go through the roof in favor of conventional bikes! Utterly skewed, but nominally apples to apples.
And you still end up measuring something different from what you want. Just as in your theory about people committing to use their e-bike more when they've spent a lot of money on it, people behave differently when you give them things for free.
It is, especially if you do it with proper statistical power. Though I'm deeply convinced that it would do science a lot of good to do fewer more expensive, but meaningful trials instead of more meaningless ones.
Your concern is somewhat valid, as you can't "blind" the test, but by using similarly priced bikes you could at least cancel out a price bias. Still there might be a "new tech" bias towards e-bikes. But then we're at "this is the best we can do" and there are limitations of how good we can study things. The study quoted above is not even near trying to do that.
There was no correction for selection bias so you can’t make any assumptions.
For example; it’s likely that e-bike riders are older and have more spare time. How much would a regular cyclist exercise with the same spare time?
Aha! So, we're comparing mountain bikers and bike-sharers with e-bikes (which belong in the category of electrified city bikes). That alone should raise some informed eyebrows.
I can only going mountain biking on weekends, but it’s far from a low effort activity, I’d be willing to bet that I expend more energy and get more exercise than someone who trundles around the city on an e-bike.
So, since belonging to a group of bicycle use (leisure, sports, commute) is additive in the amount of exercise one receives, the e-bike group is automatically larger than the non-e-bike group.
How does this pass peer review?
- 365 e-bikers (2/3 of them from Antwerp and Zürich, only 20 from Barcelona, only 5 from London, only 18 from Örebro).
- 7212 cyclists.
- 1758 non-cyclists.
There are other things far more eyebrow-raising than the skewed sample.
> Categorical travel frequency data was converted into an average number of days per month.
> Trip distance was derived by selecting the fastest route returned by the Google Maps API
> Distances for multimodal trips were assigned to the main mode using the following hierarchy: public transport, car, e-bike, bicycle, walking
> Physical activity from active travel modes was almost the same in e-bikers and cyclists (1735 vs. 1656 MET min/wk., respectively)
I turn off the motor when biking around in the city (which is flat) so I don't get used to the boost. This is a trick I play on myself so I don't lose the fun.
Amusingly, with the proliferation of e-bikes, I actually find myself on the defensive about riding a conventional bike. People ask me why I haven't switched yet.
A good light bike can be quite a bit more enjoyable to ride than an eBike, I think eBikes really just enable super-commuting by bike for those of us with weak calves.
I can see how it being easier causes people to take the bike out more than the would ordinarily.
Ordinary cycling is just too tiring for non-cyclists to want to do. An ebike makes it workable.
A more forward posture (which you get with dropped handlebars) and clip-in pedals help.
This is a feature in a sport, but a bug in a transportation method.
I cycle 10km when going out to the bar, and I love the exercise. I put on headphones and listen to an audio book and it's my favorite thing to do. Granted, my city is built along a carless waterfront, so it's ideal for cycling, but I don't think cycling is too tiring. Maybe some people just don't like the effort, though.
Although geography is a requirement for non-assisted cycling (ie. no big hills), it's ultimately a cultural matter.
Northern european countries largerly use bikes; there is no distinction between "cyclist" and "non-cyclist". Southern european countries, geographical factors being equal, use the bicycles much less.
"Travel-related activities of e-bikers who switched from cycling decreased by around 200 MET min/wk., while those switching from private motorized vehicle and public transport gained around 550 and 800 MET min/wk. respectively."
For my wife, this was the difference between biking every day or not - her commute is a little longer and better served by transit so the hills on the way home after a long day were a disincentive.
Intuitively, this makes sense; most people don't mind spinning the pedals with some moderate effort. What is discouraging is frequent start/stops and riding up hills or into headwinds. But, given the choice between pedaling and not, most people have no issue putting some work in.
Having said that, the two (soon to be three) days I cycle the 30 mile round-trip to work leave me feeling great. Would recommend to anyone. Combined with riding Metra (our commuter trains) the other days, traffic becomes a spectator sport.
Pretty sure that isn't implied by the study. Even if e-bikers get more exercise than cyclists, that doesn't mean switching to an e-bike causes you to get more exercise, the study didn't show causation. I ride recreationally, for a fixed amount of time. If I switched to an e-bike, I would just work less hard during that time, and get less exercise.
Second, cycling in the US is mostly for sport, so bike shops mostly sell road or mountain bikes, not utility bikes. And people who ride for sport are willing to spend a lot on this year’s new tech and lighter bikes.
If you want a cheap, reliable bike, buy used. Try to find an older chromoly steel mountain bike with name brand components, for example Bridgestone. It will have fender and rack mounts, and clearance for wide tires.
Even with good bike shops, the experience of simple things like buying parts really sucks. I can’t search QBP, I have to ask an employee to do it for me.
You should have no trouble getting a very reliable, pleasant ride in the sub-$1000 range from your local bike shop. That's certainly far far less than any other form of transport. It's probably even in line with a year's worth of public transit, and will last well more than a year.
But your bike fenders appear to be what we call "mud guards" which don't act as "bumpers" at all but instead prevent mud/water from spraying up.
Did I get that right, or do the "bike fenders" have some sort of anti bump facet to their design too?
So far, the economics have only hit mid-market. No point in spending over a grand just to get a truly shit Walmart-tier bicycle. Instead, they go to $1,500 and you get something more balanced. Check out Rad-city for economical examples.
For conversions, $600 is about the current minimum for a 'reasonable' build. That's a $200 eBay hub-drive kit and a $400 name-brand-cell battery. $500 if you want a better build and individual-fuses on each cell (important for peace-of-mind if you're storing in an attached garage or something). $900 total if you want a decent mid-drive.
It will come down, but right now no one is leaving profit on the table. The batteries and electronics simply cost a fair amount.
I don't know about the US, but in the EU that "like" is a must-have, your bicycle isn't street-legal as a bicycle unless it's a pedal assist (pedelec). The cheap option of pressing a button to get power makes the bicycle an electric motorcycle or scooter, needing a license, helmet etc.
So part of why they're expensive in the EU & other markets is regulatory, a drive train that can smoothly mix motor and pedal input without being clunky is more expensive to make than an electric scooter.
In Canada it's pretty easy to build faster/more powerful e-bikes that break the laws without getting caught, though I'm sure off the shelf bicycles do adhere to the regulations. I ride a conventional racing bike myself, but I like e-bikes because having more cyclists and faster cyclists is a good incentive for making more bike paths.
This also matters because some of the components aren’t the same: for example, all of the e-bikes I’ve seen used disc brakes and many had heavier duty drivetrains due to the extra torque, so that part should be expected to be more like a mountain bike than a cheap city bike. As they become more common I’d expect those components to become cheaper with high volume.
Do you call cheap android phones "phone shaped objects" too?
You get what you pay for, a <$200 dollar bike will last you years, it'll be heavy, noisy, won't withstand abuse, will rust, but it'll get you from A to B just fine.
I've bought only cheaper bikes for myself and kids (often second-hand cheap bikes too). Whilst in comparison a bike for twice the price is a joy, they're certainly functional and I've never had one that has the appearance of being dangerous, nor has proved dangerous in regular use.
You'll want to avoid cheap steel axles if you're doing jumps, and be aware of other limitations just like you can't enter a toboggan run on a plastic sledge.
I'm in the UK, I'd have thought in notoriously litigious USA that supermarkets would be extremely wary of being negligent wrt safety of products they're selling?
If you look closely you’ll see they may have the brakes incorrectly installed, the forks backwards, etc.
In my view, the practicality and enjoyment of cycling is vastly improved by having some basic maintenance skills, to the point where I consider it to be a pre-requisite.
And you don’t need many tools to do 90% of repairs. YouTube, bike coops, and your local bike shop mechanics (may need to be bribed with beer) are all good resources.