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 | Â | Â | Â |
Percentage VO2max | 51 (27) | 58 (28) | Â | Â | NC | |
Measured METs | 8.5 (3.1) | 10.9 (2.7) | Â | Â | NC | |
Estimated METs | 6.9 (2.1) | 8.4 (1.8) | Â | Â | NC | |
Cooper, 2018 [32] | Â | E-bike | Walking | Â | Â | Â |
Mean HR | 125.2 (18.1) | 107.6 (15.8) | Â | Â | 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 | Â | Â | NC | |
Gojanovic, 2011 [18] | Â | E-bike HA | E-bike LA | CB | Walking | Â |
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] | Â | E-bike HA | E-Bike LA | CB | Â | Â |
Mean absolute VO2 | 1.72 (0.54) | 1.89 (0.62) | 1.85 (0.52) | Â | .02 overall, .04 LA vs. HA, > .05 CB vs. LA, CB vs. HA | |
Percentage VO2peak | 68 (7.1) | 74 (6.2) | 73 (4.6) | Â | .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) | Â | .02 overall; .027 HA vs. LA; >.05, CB vs LA, CB vs. HA | |
Hochsmann, 2017 [30] | (Median, IQR) | E-bike | CB | Â | Â | Â |
Percentage HR max+ | 74.9 (67.4, 82.8) | 73.3 (67.7, 78.2) | Â | Â | NC | |
Langford, 2017 [23] a,c | Â | E-bike | CB | Walking | Â | Â |
Mean relative VO2 | 16.95 (5.17) | 19.32 (5.47) | 15.12 (5.35) | Â | NC | |
Mean relative EE per minute | 0.08 (0.03) | 0.10 (0.02) | 0.07 (0.03) | Â | NC | |
Mean estimated METs | 5.1 | 5.8 | 4.5 | Â | NC | |
Mean HR | 121.35 (17.04) | 127.45 (18.17) | 115.25 (14.41) | Â | NC | |
Mean power output | 63.28 (22.89) | 73.13 (35.79) | NA | Â | NC | |
La Salle, 2017 [26] a | Â | E-bike | CB | Â | Â | Â |
Mean absolute VO2 | 2.3 (0.1) | 2.5 (0.1) | Â | Â | .45 | |
Percentage VO2max | 66.4 (2.6) | 68 (2.8) | Â | Â | NR | |
Mean estimated METs | 8.3 (0.5) | 8.5 (0.6) | Â | Â | .65 | |
Mean HR | 147 (5) | 149 (5) | Â | Â | .064 | |
Percentage HR max | 79.1 (2.4) | 80.4 (2.6) | Â | Â | NR | |
Mean power output | 115 (11) | 128 (11) | Â | Â | .38 | |
Louis, 2012 [27] b | Trained | E-bike HA | E-bike LA | E-bike NA | Â | Â |
Mean relative VO2 | 14.7 (2.0) | 19.5 (2.4) | 22.9 (2.2) | Â | < .05, all comparisons | |
Mean estimated METs | 4.2 (0.6) | 5.6 (0.7) | 6.5 (0.6) | Â | < .05, all comparisons | |
Mean absolute EE per minute | 5.1 (0.8) | 7.6 (0.8) | 7.8 (0.5) | Â | < .05, all comparisons | |
Mean HR | 77.7 (11) | 89.4 (10.2) | 92.8 (11.6) | Â | < .05, all comparisons | |
Mean power output | 47.3 (9.1) | 83.6 (4.0) | 104.2 (4.2) | Â | < .05, all comparisons | |
Untrained | E-bike HA | E-bike LA | E-bike NA | Â | Â | |
Mean relative VO2 | 15.0 (2.0) | 21.7 (4.2) | 23.4 (3.6) | Â | < .05, all comparisons | |
Mean estimated METs | 4.3(0.6) | 6.2 (1.2) | 6.7 (1.0) | Â | < .05, all comparisons | |
Mean absolute EE per minute | 4.9 (0.8) | 6.7 (0.8) | 7.5 (0.9) | Â | < .05, all comparisons | |
Mean HR | 96.8 (16.8) | 116.8 (21.7) | 116.7 (16.2) | Â | < .05, all comparisons | |
Mean power output | 40.0 (7.1) | 79.8 (4.8) | 99.9 (6.9) | Â | < .05, all comparisons | |
Meyer 2014 [28] a | Â | E-bike | E-bike NA | Â | Â | Â |
Mean HR | 94.71 | 131.31 | Â | Â | NC | |
Peterman, 2016 [13] | Â | E-bike | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Mean estimate METs | 4.9 (1.2 | Â | Â | Â | Â | |
Mean absolute EE per minute | 6.5 (1.9) | Â | Â | Â | Â | |
Percentage HR max | 72.1 (5.4) | Â | Â | Â | Â | |
Simons, 2009 [20] | Â | E-bike HA | E-bike LA | E-bike NA | Â | Â |
Mean estimated METs | 5.2 (1.4) | 5.7 (1.2) | 6.1 (1.6) | Â | <.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) | Â | <.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) | Â | <.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) | Â | <.05 All comparisons | |
Sperlich, 2012 [19] a | Â | E-bike | CB | Â | Â | Â |
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] | Â | E-bike | CB | Â | Â | Â |
Mean absolute EE per minute | 5.6 (1.3) | 5.9 (1.8) | Â | Â | NR | |
Mean HR | NR | NR | Â | Â | .02, 3% lower with e-bike | |
Theurel, 2012 [25] | Â | E-bike | CB | Â | Â | Â |
Mean relative VO2 | 29 (5) | 37 (5) | Â | Â | < .001 | |
Mean HR | 136 (23) | 167 (17) | Â | Â | <.001 |