Health benefits of pedestrian and cycle commuting

[matticus]

You couldn't be more wrong. It's not a binary thing, motor on or off. It is supplementing the rider's input. The rider is putting in what they can, and working at a lower intensity but for much, much longer, which makes it better exercise for them.

Yes.
A longer answer: there are probably two user groups.
- One lot get bored with their "difficult" normal bike (e.g. for commuting?) and replace it with an e-bike. They still only ride to work. SO probably less exercise, but still more than if they'd driven every day.
- ANOTHER LOT buy an ebike despite not being regular cyclists. Either they add leisure ebike trips to their weekend, or they replace some car trips (commute?) with ebike trips. SO more exercise, less sedentary.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Yes.
A longer answer: there are probably two user groups.
- One lot get bored with their "difficult" normal bike (e.g. for commuting?) and replace it with an e-bike. They still only ride to work. SO probably less exercise, but still more than if they'd driven every day.
- ANOTHER LOT buy an ebike despite not being regular cyclists. Either they add leisure ebike trips to their weekend, or they replace some car trips (commute?) with ebike trips. SO more exercise, less sedentary.

Just for balance, to ensure all bases are covered.

Another lot already ride a bike but are struggling with hills or whatever, and buy an e-bike. They enjoy it somewhat more than their old bike so they ride it a bit more. In fact their additional riding is such that, by chance, they take precisely the same amount of exercise.

 

[albion]

Probably more exercise, it now being far more doable.

 

[Dadam]

I do not agree with that. If you are relying on the ebike, you are not getting the same exercise as on a pedal cycle.
It is completely nonsense to say using an ebike means you are getting more exercise.

If you'd just give up with the stupid straw man arguments we'd all be able to have a more constructive discussion!
Nobody on this thread has asserted that riding on an e-bike gives more exercise than the same distance on a normal bike, yet you continually misrepresent this as the argument. As a keen cyclist, presumably you'd ride the same distance so you can't see why anyone would ride more.

Can you accept there is a group of people for whom an e-bike enables them to ride more than they would be able to do on a normal bike?

Can you accept there is another group, who may be able to ride a normal bike reasonably well, but they don't enjoy the experience of slogging up some of the local hills, so the e-bike increases their motivation to ride more often and take longer rides?

In other words, they're less likely to go "no, don't fancy that today and sit on the couch". Or I think I'll go for a nice long ride and see maybe I can tackle that hill in a lower assist setting, or with the motor off? So they get more exercise than they would have done.

Even the report you post to support your argument has a conclusion that shos the opposite

Sigh. That report was (curiously) linked in an article that seemed to support the argument, so I just posted it. Lesson learned, check articles to avoid inadvertently shooting yourself in the foot.

So clearly the evidence isn't quite as unequivocal as I'd thought. That does not change my underlying argument though, that e-bikes have encouraged vast numbers of people into more exercise by lowering the barriers to entry.

But having had the chance to dig into said report I've a couple of observations. It focuses on moderate to vigorous exertion, and thereby does not count lighter exercise. I'm not sure why. Even that gentler exercise would be of great benefit to those previously inactive.

The larger issue is that the cohorts appear to be self-selected. Therefore keener, fitter cyclists will be over-represented vs the general population, and quite obviously this group will get more exercise, skewing the results. I suggest a better study would be 3 groups of non-cyclists. One group are loaned an e-bike, one group are loaned a bicycle, and the third is a control group.

 

[Alex321]

So why when I state the fact that using an e bike does not use as much personal energy as riding a pedal cycle, do you keep on posting lengthy replies r?

Just trying to make you understand that your arguments are a straw man, because you are arguing against something that nobody has suggested.

your actions contradict your words

In what way?

 

[All uphill]

Is this the five minute argument, or the ten?

 

[presta]

Guess what, 50% of the effort is less than the 1005 of the effort if you pedalled it yourself all the way.

That assumes that they'll cycle the same distance when they get an EAPC, other equally plausible scenarios are expending the same amount of effort to cycle further, or not making any effort to cycle at all unless they have an electric motor to help.

 

[albion]

Whilst I went from zero bike exercise to lots of ebike exercise, I do find that I can sustain a higher work rate than before my injuries.
I also now near 100% ride below the injury threshold.

 

[spen666]

If you'd just give up with the stupid straw man arguments we'd all be able to have a more constructive discussion!
Nobody on this thread has asserted that riding on an e-bike gives more exercise than the same distance on a normal bike, yet you continually misrepresent this as the argument. As a keen cyclist, presumably you'd ride the same distance so you can't see why anyone would ride more.

Can you accept there is a group of people for whom an e-bike enables them to ride more than they would be able to do on a normal bike?

Can you accept there is another group, who may be able to ride a normal bike reasonably well, but they don't enjoy the experience of slogging up some of the local hills, so the e-bike increases their motivation to ride more often and take longer rides?

In other words, they're less likely to go "no, don't fancy that today and sit on the couch". Or I think I'll go for a nice long ride and see maybe I can tackle that hill in a lower assist setting, or with the motor off? So they get more exercise than they would have done.


Sigh. That report was (curiously) linked in an article that seemed to support the argument, so I just posted it. Lesson learned, check articles to avoid inadvertently shooting yourself in the foot.

So clearly the evidence isn't quite as unequivocal as I'd thought. That does not change my underlying argument though, that e-bikes have encouraged vast numbers of people into more exercise by lowering the barriers to entry.

But having had the chance to dig into said report I've a couple of observations. It focuses on moderate to vigorous exertion, and thereby does not count lighter exercise. I'm not sure why. Even that gentler exercise would be of great benefit to those previously inactive.

The larger issue is that the cohorts appear to be self-selected. Therefore keener, fitter cyclists will be over-represented vs the general population, and quite obviously this group will get more exercise, skewing the results. I suggest a better study would be 3 groups of non-cyclists. One group are loaned an e-bike, one group are loaned a bicycle, and the third is a control group.

Hilarious rant from someone who posts and article to support your nonsense that using battery power uses more of your energy than pedalling despite the article saying in its conclusion precisely the opposite.

Then you admit you hadn't bothered to read the article.






Its a simple proposition that according to another poster no one disagrees with apparently except you, that pedalling g a bike uses more of your energy than using a battery powered bike.


I'm not sure why you have a problem eith a statement that is supported by the radical laws of physics.



I'm happy to put it to the test. You ride a route on your battery powered bike. I will ride the same on my pedal cycle and let's see who uses the most energy.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I'm happy to put it to the test. You ride a route on your battery powered bike. I will ride the same on my pedal cycle and let's see who uses the most energy.

Keep it going.

 

[esoxlucius]

I'm happy to put it to the test. You ride a route on your battery powered bike. I will ride the same on my pedal cycle and let's see who uses the most energy.

If you two meet up the only energy you'll both be expending is kicking seven bells out of each other at the side of the road. You won't have any energy to ride your bikes! At least one of you can use your motor to get back home, lol.

 

[matticus]

I'm happy to put it to the test. You ride a route on your battery powered bike. I will ride the same on my pedal cycle and let's see who uses the most energy.

OK ... but make sure some of this race is done below 15.5mph, as your adversary will get no motor assitance above that speed, and his/her ebike will then actually take more calories/mile to propel.

Just FYI ...

 

[Alex321]

Hilarious rant from someone who posts and article to support your nonsense that using battery power uses more of your energy than pedalling despite the article saying in its conclusion precisely the opposite.

That is not an argument he has ever tried to make. Why do you keep misrepresenting what has been said?

Its a simple proposition that according to another poster no one disagrees with apparently except you, that pedalling g a bike uses more of your energy than using a battery powered bike.

Please don't lie.

I said "nobody". Not "nobody except Dadam".

And I stand by that, unless you can find a post from Dadam which states otherwise.

You won't find such a post, of course, because he has never suggested that might not be the case.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

More energy has been expended in this thread than would be the case riding an e-bike till its battery dies.

 

[Punkawallah]

More energy has been expended in this thread than would be the case riding an e-bike till it’s battery dies.

Mmmn, no. :-p