Health benefits of pedestrian and cycle commuting

[esoxlucius]

Study after study has shown that e-bike riders on average get more exercise than normal bike riders*.

There are a couple of caveats though. One....this only works if they have a class 1 ebike, and two, only if they go out for longer rides than pure pedal pushers.

I'm not doubting there are exercise benefits but surely pure pedal power is way way better.

 

[Alex321]

Who knew that in the Dadam world using a battery counts as exercise

Everybody who knows anything about e-bikes.

 

[Alex321]

I think there are many valid reasons for people choosing ebikes. The above post is a great example.

But let's not kid ourselves, there are many able bodied ebike users out there who rely solely on the motor. I just do not see the gain that these people are getting regarding physical health advantages.

On a legal e-bike, they cannot rely solely on the motor.

I've been passed by ebikes. Now if it was on an incline I get that. But I've been passed on the flat too when it would have been better for the user to maybe a least have a go.

If they aren't having a go, then the bike is not a legal e-bike.

And yes, there are people riding those, I've seen them around the streets of Cardiff a few times. But there are also plenty of people riding legal e-bikes.

 

[Dadam]

There are a couple of caveats though. One....this only works if they have a class 1 ebike, and two, only if they go out for longer rides than pure pedal pushers.

I'm not doubting there are exercise benefits but surely pure pedal power is way way better.

What do you mean by class 1? Legal EAPC? Well yes I stated as much in my first post on the subject.

If you go for the same length of ride then obviously you'd do more exercise on pure pedal power.

But that's not what happens, and not what the data shows. Because they're not worried about being too knackered or not being able to get up the hills at all, they have the freedom to go for much longer rides, and will often go for a ride where they wouldn't bother if they didn't have an e-bike. It lowers the psychological barrier, hence more rides and longer rides, so overall more exercise done. And it's low to mid intensity over a longer period.

 

[Alex321]

There are a couple of caveats though. One....this only works if they have a class 1 ebike, and two, only if they go out for longer rides than pure pedal pushers.

I'm not doubting there are exercise benefits but surely pure pedal power is way way better.

For those of us who can, yes of course it is.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

But riding a legal e-bike is still much better than not riding at all. And while it would undoubtedly be better exercise to ride a pure pedal powered bike, the studies have shown that on average, ebb-ike riders DO go further than pedal bike riders.

Though that average is the average across the whole population, where "pedal bike riders" includes those who only ride occasionally, or who do a 2 mile commute by bike.

 

[spen666]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Nuance not your strong suit? Well I've done my best. If you still can't grasp the simple premise that it's not all battery or all muscle, then I think the problem is with you.

Study after study has shown that e-bike riders on average get more exercise than normal bike riders*.

https://storybicycles.com/blogs/ebi...iUznJrU82t0caL6I2FAgDakBFF75t15pbXaDkbgTpoiYo

https://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/8/4/e001275

* Clearly, not the case for you and other superfit cyclists

Like I say in your fantasy worlkd you get more exercise by sitting on a battery powered bike than by pedalling.

What sort of stupidity are you trying to raise.
Only someone with an agenda would suggest that pedalling say 10 miles uses less energy than pushing a button and having a battery do some or all of the work for you.
You crack on believing a battery powered motor means you use more energy than by pedalling it yourself.
Ladies & Gentlemen - we have a world first here, Dadman has proved that Einstein is wrong and you use more power by not pedalling as much and getting a battery to do work for you.

 

[Alex321]

Like I say in your fantasy worlkd you get more exercise by sitting on a battery powered bike than by pedalling.

That is *your* "fantasy world". Nobody else has suggested that for one moment.

What sort of stupidity are you trying to raise.
Only someone with an agenda would suggest that pedalling say 10 miles uses less energy than pushing a button and having a battery do some or all of the work for you.
You crack on believing a battery powered motor means you use more energy than by pedalling it yourself.
Ladies & Gentlemen - we have a world first here, Dadman has proved that Einstein is wrong and you use more power by not pedalling as much and getting a battery to do work for you.

I suggest you actually read what he has written, rather than telling he is saying things he hasn't.

 

[spen666]

That is *your* "fantasy world". Nobody else has suggested that for one moment.



I suggest you actually read what he has written, rather than telling he is saying things he hasn't.

I suggest you go back and read this thread.

I have been clear and consistent and stating what is in accordance with known science except for Dadman.
Riding a pedal bike uses more energy of the rider than riding a bike powered in whole or part by a battery.

It is nonsense and living in a fantasy world to suggest otherwise

A battery powered ride ( in whole or part) does not use more rider energy than one where the rider pedals all the way

 

[classic33]

Like I say in your fantasy worlkd you get more exercise by sitting on a battery powered bike than by pedalling.

What sort of stupidity are you trying to raise.
Only someone with an agenda would suggest that pedalling say 10 miles uses less energy than pushing a button and having a battery do some or all of the work for you.
You crack on believing a battery powered motor means you use more energy than by pedalling it yourself.
Ladies & Gentlemen - we have a world first here, Dadman has proved that Einstein is wrong and you use more power by not pedalling as much and getting a battery to do work for you.

If the motor is doing all of the work, then it's a bike that falls outside the current UK EAPC(Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle) regulations, meaning that it's classified as a moped.

From reading his posts on this thread, I get the feeling that he's saying that legal EAPC's get more people out riding, possibly further than they'd attempt on an analogue cycle. The rider has to put some effort in, therefore there is an exercise element to it. Which has to be better than just doing nothing, exercise wise.

 

[Dadam]

I suggest you go back and read this thread.

I have been clear and consistent and stating what is in accordance with known science except for Dadman.
Riding a pedal bike uses more energy of the rider than riding a bike powered in whole or part by a battery.

It is nonsense and living in a fantasy world to suggest otherwise

A battery powered ride ( in whole or part) does not use more rider energy than one where the rider pedals all the way

Nope, you're the one with no grasp of science. If the battery does 50% of the work, that means I'm doing the other 50%. How difficult is this for you?

 

[Dadam]

A battery powered ride ( in whole or part) does not use more rider energy than one where the rider pedals all the way

FFS, this is hard work! A 50 km ride with 2000m of climbing where the rider does 50% of the work uses more rider energy than a 10km ride with 100m of climbing where the rider does 100% of the work. That is the simple premise.

Simple to most people, but not, it seems to you.

 

[Alex321]

I suggest you go back and read this thread.

I have been clear and consistent and stating what is in accordance with known science except for Dadman.

Except that you keep claiming Dadman has been saying things which he simply hasn't. Everything he has said is also in accordance with known science. You are reading something into what he has said that simply isn't there.

Riding a pedal bike uses more energy of the rider than riding a bike powered in whole or part by a battery.

It is nonsense and living in a fantasy world to suggest otherwise

Correct.

But then nobody has suggested otherwise, so that is a complete straw man.

A battery powered ride ( in whole or part) does not use more rider energy than one where the rider pedals all the way

Nobody has suggested otherwise.

If you think anybody has, then please point to the post where it was said, as I have obviously missed it.

The closest anybody has come is in (correctly) saying that if having the battery encourages people to make longer rides, then that may result in the getting more exercise than they would from a shorter ride done without assistance.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

You still have to work, just not as hard.

Or as long.

 

[Alex321]

Or as long.

Maybe.

If you are going at the same speed, it will be as long, but less effort per second. If you are going faster, it may be as much effort per second, but for less time.

Overall, the work will be less either way. But you will still be working.

And as Dadam has said, if it is a hill you wouldn't have tried without the assistance, then you are doing more exercise than you would have otherwise.

 

[C R]

From reading his posts on this thread, I get the feeling that he's saying that legal EAPC's get more people out riding, possibly further than they'd attempt on an analogue cycle. The rider has to put some effort in, therefore there is an exercise element to it. Which has to be better than just doing nothing, exercise wise.

OT, sorry. I agree with your post, but, please, don't propagate this usage. Electrically assisted bicycles are no more digital than any other device with electric assistance, and bicycles without assistace are not any more analogue than ICE cars are, they're just bicycles.