Skip to main content

Table 2 Physical activity intensity outcomes of interest measured during rides*

From: Health benefits of electrically-assisted cycling: a systematic review

Study

Outcomes

Results; mean (SD)

E-bike

Comparison 1

Comparison 2

Comparison 3

Significance testing, p value

Bernsten, 2017 [22] a

(Median, IQR)

E-bike

CB

   

Percentage VO2max

51 (27)

58 (28)

  

NC

Measured METs

8.5 (3.1)

10.9 (2.7)

  

NC

Estimated METs

6.9 (2.1)

8.4 (1.8)

  

NC

Cooper, 2018 [32]

 

E-bike

Walking

   

Mean HR

125.2 (18.1)

107.6 (15.8)

  

NC

 Men

121.2 (17.2)

103.2 (14.1)

  

NC

 Women

132.6 (18.9)

116.5 (16.9)

  

NC

Percentage HR max

74.7

64.3

  

NC

Gojanovic, 2011 [18]

 

E-bike HA

E-bike LA

CB

Walking

 

Mean absolute VO2peak

1.50 (.038)

1.79 (0.46)

2.00 (0.44)

1.6 (0.34)

< 0.001 overall, <.05, all comparisons except HA vs. Walk (>.05)

Percentage VO2peak

54.9 (11)

65.7 (8.1)

72.8 (6.4)

59 (9.1)

< 0.001 overall, <.05, all comparisons except HA vs. Walk (>.05)

Mean estimated METs

6.1 (1.4)

7.3 (1.0)

8.2 (1.3)

6.5 (0.8)

< 0.001 overall, <.05, all comparisons except HA vs. Walk (>.05)

Mean HR

138.4 (18)

149 (17.7)

157.0 (11.2)

132.7 (17.4)

< 0.001 overall, <.05, all comparisons except HA vs. Walk (>.05)

Percentage HR max

74.5 (8.7)

80.3 (8.7)

84.6 (5.2)

71.5 (9.2)

< 0.001 overall, <.05, all comparisons except HA vs. Walk (>.05)

Hansen, 2017 [21]

 

E-bike HA

E-Bike LA

CB

  

Mean absolute VO2

1.72 (0.54)

1.89 (0.62)

1.85 (0.52)

 

.02 overall, .04 LA vs. HA, > .05 CB vs. LA, CB vs. HA

Percentage VO2peak

68 (7.1)

74 (6.2)

73 (4.6)

 

.01 overall, .03 LA vs. HA, > .05 CB vs. LA, CB vs. HA

Mean estimated METs

6 (1.8)

6.6 (2)

6.4 (1.6)

 

.02 overall; .027 HA vs. LA; >.05, CB vs LA, CB vs. HA

Hochsmann, 2017 [30]

(Median, IQR)

E-bike

CB

   

Percentage HR max+

74.9 (67.4, 82.8)

73.3 (67.7, 78.2)

  

NC

Langford, 2017 [23] a,c

 

E-bike

CB

Walking

  

Mean relative VO2

16.95 (5.17)

19.32 (5.47)

15.12 (5.35)

 

NC

Mean relative EE per minute

0.08 (0.03)

0.10 (0.02)

0.07 (0.03)

 

NC

Mean estimated METs

5.1

5.8

4.5

 

NC

Mean HR

121.35 (17.04)

127.45 (18.17)

115.25 (14.41)

 

NC

Mean power output

63.28 (22.89)

73.13 (35.79)

NA

 

NC

La Salle, 2017 [26] a

 

E-bike

CB

   

Mean absolute VO2

2.3 (0.1)

2.5 (0.1)

  

.45

Percentage VO2max

66.4 (2.6)

68 (2.8)

  

NR

Mean estimated METs

8.3 (0.5)

8.5 (0.6)

  

.65

Mean HR

147 (5)

149 (5)

  

.064

Percentage HR max

79.1 (2.4)

80.4 (2.6)

  

NR

Mean power output

115 (11)

128 (11)

  

.38

Louis, 2012 [27] b

Trained

E-bike HA

E-bike LA

E-bike NA

  

Mean relative VO2

14.7 (2.0)

19.5 (2.4)

22.9 (2.2)

 

< .05, all comparisons

Mean estimated METs

4.2 (0.6)

5.6 (0.7)

6.5 (0.6)

 

< .05, all comparisons

Mean absolute EE per minute

5.1 (0.8)

7.6 (0.8)

7.8 (0.5)

 

< .05, all comparisons

Mean HR

77.7 (11)

89.4 (10.2)

92.8 (11.6)

 

< .05, all comparisons

Mean power output

47.3 (9.1)

83.6 (4.0)

104.2 (4.2)

 

< .05, all comparisons

Untrained

E-bike HA

E-bike LA

E-bike NA

  

Mean relative VO2

15.0 (2.0)

21.7 (4.2)

23.4 (3.6)

 

< .05, all comparisons

Mean estimated METs

4.3(0.6)

6.2 (1.2)

6.7 (1.0)

 

< .05, all comparisons

Mean absolute EE per minute

4.9 (0.8)

6.7 (0.8)

7.5 (0.9)

 

< .05, all comparisons

Mean HR

96.8 (16.8)

116.8 (21.7)

116.7 (16.2)

 

< .05, all comparisons

Mean power output

40.0 (7.1)

79.8 (4.8)

99.9 (6.9)

 

< .05, all comparisons

Meyer 2014 [28] a

 

E-bike

E-bike NA

   

Mean HR

94.71

131.31

  

NC

Peterman, 2016 [13]

 

E-bike

    

Mean estimate METs

4.9 (1.2

    

Mean absolute EE per minute

6.5 (1.9)

    

Percentage HR max

72.1 (5.4)

    

Simons, 2009 [20]

 

E-bike HA

E-bike LA

E-bike NA

  

Mean estimated METs

5.2 (1.4)

5.7 (1.2)

6.1 (1.6)

 

<.05 HA and NA, >.05 HA vs. LA, LA vs. NA

Mean HR

112.4 (22.9)

116.2 (22.4)

123.8 (23.2)

 

<.05 NA vs. HA; NA vs. LA, >.05 HA vs. LA

Percentage HR max

6 7.1 (14.1)

69.3 (13.5)

73.9 (14.5)

 

<.05 NA vs. HA; NA vs. LA, >.05 HA vs. LA

Mean absolute power

94.2 (29.2)

101.8 (24.8)

118.2 (30.9)

 

<.05 All comparisons

Sperlich, 2012 [19] a

 

E-bike

CB

   

Mean relative VO2

18 (3.8)

25.5 (4.8)

  

<.05, ES = 1.73

Mean absolute VO2

1.33 (0.35)

1.77 (0.43)

  

< .05, ES = 1.12

Mean estimated METs

5.2 (1.7)

7.1 (1.4)

  

<.05, ES = 1.22

Mean HR

105 (20)

133 (19)

  

<.05, ES = 1.53

Mean absolute power

363 (23)

415 (28)

  

<.05, ES = 2.02

Theurel, 2011 [24]

 

E-bike

CB

   

Mean absolute EE per minute

5.6 (1.3)

5.9 (1.8)

  

NR

Mean HR

NR

NR

  

.02, 3% lower with e-bike

Theurel, 2012 [25]

 

E-bike

CB

   

Mean relative VO2

29 (5)

37 (5)

  

< .001

Mean HR

136 (23)

167 (17)

  

<.001

  1. *Given the difference in the cycle routes conducted mean values or percentage of maximum for outcomes related to physical activity intensity are reported (e.g., Mean VO2peak, mean heart rate, mean energy expenditure). For additional physical activity related outcomes reported in the studies see Additional file 4
  2. +reported for only a subsample of the group (n = 5 e-bikes, n = 4 conventional bike)
  3. EE energy expenditure, HR heart rate, METs metabolic equivalent, VO2 volume of oxygen, VO2 oxygen intake value; VO2max highest oxygen intake value attainable for an individual, VO2peak the highest oxygen intake value obtained on a specific test, CB conventional bike, HA high assistance, LA low assistance, NA no assistance
  4. ES effect size measured as Cohen’s d, NC not conducted, NR not reported
  5. Relative VO2, VO2max and VO2peak measured as ml/min/kg; Absolute VO2, VO2max and VO2peak measured in l/min; Mean absolute energy expenditure measured in kcal/min; Mean relative energy expenditure measured in kcal/kg/min; Mean heart rate measured in beats per minute (bpm); Mean power output measured in Watts, Estimated METs measured using assumption that resting energy expenditure (i.e.,1 MET) = 3.5 ml/kg/min; Measured METs measured through assessed individual resting energy expenditure
  6. aResults are reported to total cycle routes. Studies separated results for different route topography. See Additional file 3 for details on different cycling topography; b Participants completed same activity at three different speeds, self-selected speed reported; c Total sample analyses not conducted, see Additional file 3 for analyses between ride segments