JMIR FORMATIVE RESEARCHHall et al

Original Paper

Pedal-Assist Mountain Bikes: A Pilot Study Comparison of the
Exercise Response, Perceptions, and Beliefs of Experienced
Mountain Bikers
Cougar Hall1*, PhD; Taylor H Hoj2*, MPH; Clark Julian2*, BS; Geoff Wright3*, PhD; Robert A Chaney1*, PhD;
Benjamin Crookston1*, PhD; Joshua West1*, PhD
1

Department of Public Health, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, United States

2

Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, United States

3

Department of Technology and Engineering Studies, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, United States*

all authors contributed equally

Corresponding Author:
Cougar Hall, PhD
Department of Public Health
Brigham Young University
2140 Life Science Building
Provo, UT, 84602
United States
Phone: 1 8014225656
Fax: 1 8014220273
Email: cougar_hall@byu.edu

Abstract
Background: Mountain biking is an aerobic physical activity that has experienced rapid growth. The emergence of the electricpedal-assist mountain bike (eMTB), while not without its critics, presents the potential for an even larger segment of the population
to enjoy the health benefits of mountain biking. Although the research focused on the use of e-bikes generally is growing, there
is limited research specifically targeting eMTB use. Research is needed exploring the potential exercise response of riding an
eMTB, together with the beliefs and perceptions of mountain bikers who have and have not experienced eMTB riding.
Objective: This study aimed to compare conventional mountain bike and eMTB use. This was done by investigating 2 questions:(1) What proportion of exercise response is retained for an experienced mountain biker while using an eMTB when comparedwith a conventional mountain bike? and (2) What are the perceptions and beliefs of experienced mountain bikers toward eMTBs
both before and after riding an eMTB?
Methods: A convergent mixed methods data collection approach was used in the study. Participants completed both a pre- andpostride questionnaire, and data regarding heart rate were collected. Heart rates from each ride were compared against each other.
Results: The average heart rate during eMTB use was 94% (31/33) of the average heart rate during conventional mountain bikeuse. Therefore, eMTB use in this study achieved a majority of the exercise response and exceeded established biometric thresholds
for cardiovascular fitness. Paired t test statistics were calculated to compare beliefs of conventional mountain bikes and eMTBs
and to compare mean heart rate and speed between conventional mountain bike and eMTB use on the study loop. Participants
overwhelmingly perceived the potential impact of eMTB use to be positive on both pre- and post-eMTB ride questionnaires.
Conclusions: Despite the measured benefit, participants’ perceived exertion while riding the eMTB was low.
(JMIR Form Res 2019;3(3):e13643) doi: 10.2196/13643
KEYWORDS
public health; physical activity; heart rate

http://formative.jmir.org/2019/3/e13643/

XSL• FO
RenderX

JMIR Form Res 2019 | vol. 3 | iss. 3 | e13643 | p. 1
(page number not for citation purposes)

JMIR FORMATIVE RESEARCH

Introduction
Promoting physical activity is an international public healthpriority [1,2]. The United States Department of Health andHuman Services (HHS) recommends that adults engage inmoderate aerobic physical activity for at least 150 min eachweek or vigorous aerobic physical activity for 75 min each week
or a combination of both [3]. In spite of the recommendation,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimatethat only 20.9% of adults in the United States fulfill therecommendation [4]. There are many reasons attributed to thedisregard, and potential solutions have been implemented andstudied. This study investigated the physical activity of electricpedal-assist mountain biking as a viable solution to improve
compliance with HHS recommendations.
Mountain biking is an aerobic physical activity that has
experienced rapid growth in the United States [5]. However,mountain biking is often limited or perceived to be limited tothose individuals who already enjoy a relatively high level ofcardiovascular fitness and endurance. The emergence of electricpedal-assist bikes (e-bikes), and specifically electric pedal-assist
mountain bikes (eMTB), presents an opportunity for a larger
segment of the population to enjoy the health benefits ofmountain biking [6]. A review of e-bike literature supports the
hypothesis that e-bike use is a beneficial physical activity for awide range of individuals with an added benefit of promoting
health among individuals otherwise reluctant to engage inphysical activity [7-12]. Recent studies suggest that e-bikecommuting may be helpful in improving glucose tolerance [10],decreasing perceived exertion and improved enjoyment [11],and reducing barriers to conventional cycling, including
commuting [13]. For example, results from a Web-based survey
demonstrated that those using an e-bike to ride to work reportan ability to ride greater distances while perspiring less,suggesting that e-bikes may reduce some of the personal barriersof conventional cycling as a form of active transport [14]. This
combined body of research shows the potential physical healthbenefits of e-bikes.
A typical e-bike has an electric motor that functions as apedal-assist, only engaging when the individual pedals. The
motor's contribution allows a rider to cycle greater distances
and up steeper terrain because of the decreased physicalworkload [14]. Though heart rate, energy expenditure, oxygen
consumption, and intensity is generally lower compared witha conventional bike [7,13], e-bike use still produces moderate
physical activity in comparable settings and between groups
with differing fitness levels [8,9].
Although the research focused on the use of e-bikes is growing,
there is limited research regarding eMTB use. There are 2
studies that investigated heart rate and energy expenditure
between e-bike use with conventional bikes [7,13]. Each foundthat energy use was likely lower with e-bikes. Nevertheless,findings indicate that an e-bike rider still pedals and exerts
energy, which may help them meet the physical activity
guidelines and gain the associated health benefits. Part of ourinquiry is to test this observation with eMTBs, which has notbeen done previously.
http://formative.jmir.org/2019/3/e13643/

XSL• FO
RenderX

Hall et al
Although the popularity of e-bikes is growing and their benefits
related to active transport and physical activity for a broad
segment of the population are being established, the introductionof eMTBs to the mountain biking community has been met withmuch resistance. Concerns have been raised concerning eMTB
use and increased trail damage, increased conflict between trailusers, a potential for decreased trail access, and the perceptionthat pedal-assist mountain bikes are akin to motorcycles and do
not represent real mountain biking. These concerns have thepotential to limit the adoption of eMTBs by individuals who
may benefit from them or otherwise enjoy their use. To date,researchers are yet to explore any aspect of eMTB use, including
the potential exercise response of riding an eMTB, as well as
the beliefs and perceptions of mountain bikers who have andhave not experienced eMTB riding. The purpose of this pilot
study was to compare conventional mountain bike and eMTB
use. In particular, this study aimed to address 2 researchquestions: (1) What proportion of exercise response is retained
for an experienced mountain biker while using an eMTB whencompared with a conventional mountain bike? and (2) What
are the perceptions and beliefs of experienced mountain bikers
toward eMTBs both before and after riding an eMTB?

Methods
Participants
Experienced mountain bikers aged between 18 and 65 years
were recruited to participate in this study. Exclusion criteria
included non–mountain bikers and mountain bikers with theinability to engage in moderate to vigorous intensity mountainbiking for 12 miles or those who have a medical condition thatwould prevent them from moderate to vigorous exercise.

Procedures
The institutional review board at Brigham Young University
approved this study. A study announcement was posted to aregional Facebook page popular with local mountain bikers.
Individuals wishing to participate were directed to contact the
principal investigator via email and set up a time to meet at a
local trail system. Upon arrival at the trail system, individuals
completed the pre-eMTB ride questionnaire using Qualtrics, a
Web-based survey software platform, on their personal phoneor the principal investigator’s laptop computer. The firstpre-eMTB questionnaire item included obtaining the individual’s
informed consent to participate in the study. Consenting
individuals then proceeded to the remainder of the questionnaire.
Upon completing the pre-eMTB ride questionnaire, participants
were fitted with a heart rate monitor and corresponding Apple
Watch. Each Apple Watch was paired to the heart rate monitor
and Strava app to record the participant’s ride data, including
global positioning system (GPS) tracking, total distance traveled,and speed traveled. Next, participants were randomly assigned
to ride the 6-mile study loop on either a conventional mountainbike or an eMTB. The study loop included approximately 700
feet of elevation gain spread throughout the ride with the mostintense climbing section averaging a 5% incline over a distanceof 1 mile. Upon completing the study loop on their initiallyassigned bike, participants’ heart rate and Strava data were
saved. Participants then rode the loop again on the remaining
JMIR Form Res 2019 | vol. 3 | iss. 3 | e13643 | p. 2
(page number not for citation purposes)

JMIR FORMATIVE RESEARCH
bike—whichever type of bike they did not ride while completingthe first loop. After completing the study loop a second time,
participant heart rate and Strava data were again saved and eachparticipant then completed the post-eMTB ride questionnaire.
The study was completed between May 24 and June 16, 2018.

Instruments/Measurements
Both conventional mountain bikes and eMTBs were used inthis study to establish a comparison between participants’ heart
rate and speed while riding the study loop. The electric mountainbikes used were Class 1 pedal-assist 2017 Specialized Turbo
Levo FSR Comp Carbon 6Fattie models with a maximum
assistance speed of 20 mph (32 kph) [15]. Participants were
given the option of either riding their own traditional mountainbike or a 2017 Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Comp 6Fattie
model—the equivalent of the Turbo Levo model without
pedal-assist—while completing the non-eMTB lap of the study
loop.
Third-generation Apple brand watches (Apple Watch) werepaired with Polar H10 heart rate monitors to record theparticipants’ continuous heart-rate data while completing eachlap of the study loop. Total distance, speed, and time whileriding was recorded during study laps using Strava, a mobile
app using GPS technology available via the App Store for iOS
and Apple Watch platforms. A comparison of participants’ heart
rate was used as a proxy measure to estimate exercise response.
Specifically, estimated maximum heart rate (MHR) was
calculated by subtracting the age of the study participants from
220. The estimated MHR was then used to establish a target
average heart rate range for moderate-intensity physical activity(50%-70% of MHR) and vigorous-intensity physical activity(70%-85% of MHR). These ranges were calculated based ontarget heart rate recommendations from the CDC and theAmerican Heart Association [16,17].
A total of 2 survey instruments, developed using the Web-based
survey software provided by Qualtrics, were used in this study.
Survey 1—the pre-eMTB ride questionnaire administered before
riding either of the study bikes or loops—was used to gather
basic demographic information, mountain biking history andexperience data, perceived impact of eMTB use, and beliefs
about
eMTBs.
Survey2—thepost-eMTB
ridequestionnaire—was administered after participants hadcompleted riding the study loop on both a conventional mountainbike and an eMTB. The questions in Survey 2 were identicalto the final questions asked in Survey 1, targeting participants’
perceptions and beliefs related to eMTB use.

http://formative.jmir.org/2019/3/e13643/

XSL• FO
RenderX

Hall et al

Analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4(SAS Institute Inc). Descriptive statistics were used tosummarize demographic data from Survey 1. Paired t test
statistics were calculated to compare beliefs about conventional
mountain bikes and eMTBs and to compare mean heart rate andspeed between conventional mountain bike and eMTB use on
the study loop.

Results
Demographics
The majority of participants were male (88%; 29/33), and all
identified as non-Hispanic and white. The average age was justunder 38 years. All participants had completed at least somecollege. Complete demographic and mountain biking experience
information can be found in Tables 1 and 2. Approximately half
(16/33) of participants had more than 10 years of mountainbiking experience. The majority (24/33) reported mountainbiking at least twice each week. All participants indicated they
mountain bike to increase fitness, spend time outdoors, andrecreate or have fun. Few participants (n=3) had previously
ridden an eMTB before participating in this study.

Exercise Response
Table 3 provides a comparison of average distance, time, speed,
and heart rate metrics between conventional mountain bike and
eMTB use as well as paired t test results.
Participants traveled approximately 5.5 miles (8.85 km) whileriding the study loop. A paired t test analysis (Table 3) revealed
participants completed the course an average of 12 min and 40
seconds faster when riding the eMTB as opposed to theconventional mountain bike (P<.001). The average speed oftravel on the eMTB was 4.1 mph (6.6 km/h) faster than on theconventional mountain bike (P<.001). Participants’ averageheart rate during the eMTB ride was 9.9 beats per minute (bpm)lower than during the conventional mountain bike ride (P<.001).
With a mean age of 37.8 years, participants’ estimated MHR
was 182 bpm. The target heart rate zone for moderate-intensity
exercise (50%-70% of MHR) and vigorous-intensity exercise(70%-85% of MHR) was then calculated to be 91 bpm to 127
bpm (0.5x182=91.12, 0.7x182=127.4) and 128 bpm to 155 bpm(0.7x182=127.4, 0.85x182=154.7), respectively [16]. Riding
both the conventional mountain bike and the eMTB placed
participants’ in the upper half of the vigorous-intensity zone
(Table 4).

JMIR Form Res 2019 | vol. 3 | iss. 3 | e13643 | p. 3
(page number not for citation purposes)

JMIR FORMATIVE RESEARCHHall et al

Table 1. Demographics (N=33).
Demographics

Value, n (%)

Age (years)
20-29

7 (21)

30-39

9 (27)

40-49

13 (39)50 and older

4 (12)RaceWhite

33 (100)

Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic or Latino

33 (100)Male

29 (88)

Female4 (12)

Sex

Education level
Some college (not graduated)

8 (24)

2-year college degree

6 (18)

4-year college degree

12 (36)Master’s degree

5 (15)

Doctoral degree

2 (6)Annual household income ($ US)
Less than 30,000

3 (9)40,000-49,999

2 (6)50,000-59,999

3 (9)60,000-69,999

2 (6)70,000-79,999

3 (9)80,000-89,999

3 (9)90,000-99,999

1 (3)100,000 or more

16 (48)

http://formative.jmir.org/2019/3/e13643/

XSL• FO
RenderX

JMIR Form Res 2019 | vol. 3 | iss. 3 | e13643 | p. 4
(page number not for citation purposes)

JMIR FORMATIVE RESEARCHHall et al

Table 2. Mountain biking experience (N=33).
Mountain biking experience

Value, n (%)

Mountain biking experiencea (years)
Less than 1

2 (6)

1-5

7 (23)

6-10

6 (19)

11 and more

16 (52)

During a typical riding season, how often do you mountain bike?
1-2 days a month

3 (9)Once a week

6 (18)

2-3 days a week

19 (58)4-5 days a week

5 (15)

Daily

0 (0)

For which of the following reasons do you ride a mountain bike? (yes)Recreation or fun

33 (100)

To spend time with family

16 (48)To increase fitness

33 (100)

Racing3 (9)To spend time with friends

29 (88)To spend time outdoors

33 (100)

What best describes your bike?
Cross-country

5 (15)Trail

11 (33)All mountain/Enduro

17 (52)

Has previously ridden a class 1 electric pedal-assist mountain bike
a

3 (9)

N=31.

Table 3. Riding and exercise response results.
Paired t test: MTBa vs eMTBb

Comparison of distance, time, speed, and heart rate metrics (N=33) Descriptive statisticsa

MTB, mean (SD)eMTB, mean (SD)

Mean difference

P valueTime (min:seconds)

38:54 (7:48)

26:14 (3:45)

12:40

<.001

Average speed (miles per hour)

8.8 (1.4)

12.9 (1.7)

−4.1

<.001

Average heart rate (beats per minute)154.8 (12.9)

144.9 (13.7)

9.9

<.001

MTB: mountain bikebeMTB: electric pedal-assist mountain bike

http://formative.jmir.org/2019/3/e13643/

XSL• FO
RenderX

JMIR Form Res 2019 | vol. 3 | iss. 3 | e13643 | p. 5
(page number not for citation purposes)

JMIR FORMATIVE RESEARCHHall et al

Table 4. Riding and exercise response results.

aComparison of distance, time, speed, and heart rate metrics (N=33)

MTBa, n (%)

eMTBb, n (%)

P valuec

Moderate-intensity physical activity

2 (6.1)

4 (12.1).09

Vigorous-intensity physical activity

31 (93.9)

29 (87.9)—d

MTB: mountain bikebeMTB: electric pedal-assist mountain bikec

Chi-Square: MTB vs eMTB.

d

Not applicable.

Perceptions
Table 5 includes pre- and post-eMTB ride data related toperceptions of potential impacts of eMTB use. Participants
overwhelmingly perceived the potential impact of eMTB use
to be positive on both pre- and post-eMTB ride questionnaires.
Only “Potentially allows riders to ascend or climb greater
distances and elevations in less time on dirt trails” wassignificantly different on the post-eMTB ride questionnaire,with more participants in agreement that eMTB use would havesuch an impact.

Beliefs
Table 6 includes the results of 26 pre- and post-eMTB ride belief
statements regarding eMTB use. A total of 4 belief statements

were significantly different after riding the eMTB. Fewerparticipants agreed that eMTB use will prove to be a passing
fad and that they could get the same cardiovascular workout
on an eMTB as a conventional mountain bike, whereas moreparticipants agreed that their heart rate is considerably lower
while riding an eMTB as compared with a conventional
mountain bike and eMTB use allows riders greater and deeper
access to backcountry dirt trails. Table 7 includes results fromthe final questionnaire item asking how beliefs and perceptions
about eMTBs changed after riding one showed that few
participants (n=3) were less accepting of eMTBs, someexperienced no change (n=8), and the majority (n=20) weremore accepting of eMTBs after riding one.

Table 5. Perceptions of potential impact of electric pedal-assist mountain bike use (N=32).
Perceptions of potential impacts of electric pedal-assist mountain bike use

Preride (agreed),n (%)

Postride (agreed), P valuean (%)

Potentially allows older riders to continue enjoying mountain biking on dirt trails

32 (100)

30 (94).16

Potentially allows less-fit riders to more fully enjoy mountain biking on dirt trails

27 (84)27 (84)>.99

Potentially allows injured or disabled riders to continue enjoying mountain biking on dirt trails 32 (100)31 (97).33

Potentially allows riders of varying fitness levels to mountain bike together on dirt trails

25 (78)26 (81).66

Potentially allows all riders to mountain bike longer distances on trailsb

25 (81)27 (87).33

Potentially allows riders greater and deeper access to the backcountry on dirt trails

25 (78)28 (88).18

Potentially allows riders to ascend or climb greater distances and elevations in less time on dirt 23 (72)trails29 (91).03

Potentially allows riders who may otherwise shuttle the ascent or drive to the top of the trail in 27 (84)a vehicle to ride up on dirt trails

27 (84)>.99

Potentially increases the appeal of riding on dirt trails to more people

21 (66)24 (75).33

Potentially improves public health outcomes by increasing rates of physical activity

27 (84)27 (84)>.99a

P values were derived from paired t tests of preride and postride values. Variables were coded using the following logic: 0=Negative (con), 1=Positive(pro). The significant P value (<.05) has been italicized.
b

N=31.

http://formative.jmir.org/2019/3/e13643/

XSL• FO
RenderX

JMIR Form Res 2019 | vol. 3 | iss. 3 | e13643 | p. 6
(page number not for citation purposes)

JMIR FORMATIVE RESEARCHHall et al

Table 6. Beliefs regarding electric pedal-assist mountain bike use (N=33).

aBeliefs regarding eMTBa use

Preride (agreed),n (%)b

Postride (agreed), P value cn (%)b

I believe riding an eMTB is cheating

16 (48)13 (39).11

I believe riding an eMTB is equivalent to riding a motorcycle

4 (12)

5 (15).38

I believe if eMTBs are allowed on existing dirt trails, then trail access for all mountain bikers
will be compromised

15 (45)

10 (30).26

I believe eMTB riders perceive they are actually mountain biking, but they are not; eMTB use 11 (33)
is not mountain biking

5 (15).23

I believe eMTBs should be banned from existing mountain bike trails and trail systems

6 (18)

6 (18).79

I believe eMTB use causes more trail damage compared with conventional mountain bikes

6 (18)

4 (12).70

I believe eMTB use should be limited to riders with physical handicaps or impairments

6 (18)

5 (15).08

I believe that in the future, eMTB use will replace conventional mountain bikingd

2 (6)

4 (13).26

I believe eMTBs have the potential to help older riders continue to enjoy mountain biking

32 (97)31 (94).60

I believe eMTBs have the potential to help less-fit riders increase their fitness levels and transi- 25 (76)tion to conventional mountain biking

25 (76).71

I believe I could get the same cardiovascular workout on an eMTB as I do my conventional
mountain bike14 (42)5 (15).002

I believe my heart rate is considerably lower while riding an eMTB as compared with myconventional mountain bike18 (55)28 (85)<.001

I am opposed to eMTB use

6 (18)

4 (12).11

I believe eMTBs are primarily being pushed on cyclist by the industry to make money

5 (15)

7 (21).41

I believe eMTB use will have a negative impact on mountain biking

7 (21)

7 (21).25

I believe eMTB use will prove to be a passing fad

10 (30)6 (18).03

I am opposed to eMTB use by healthy individuals

8 (24)

8 (24).45

I am opposed to eMTB use on the same trails as conventional mountain biking

7 (21)

7 (21).32

I am fine with pedal-assist bike use on the street, but I am opposed to their use on dirt trails

7 (21)

6 (18).14

I believe eMTB use allows riders of varying fitness levels to mountain bike together on dirt
trails30 (91)26 (79).34

I believe eMTB use allows all riders to bike longer distances

32 (97)33 (100).07

I believe that eMTB use allows riders greater and deeper access to backcountry dirt trails

30 (91)32 (97).03

I believe that eMTB use allows riders to ascend or climb greater distances and elevations inless time on dirt trails

31 (94)33 (100).001

I believe that eMTB use allows riders who may otherwise shuttle the ascent or drive to the top 31 (94)of the trail in a vehicle to ride up on dirt trails

31 (94).54

I am supportive of eMTB usee

26 (84).17

26 (84)eMTB: electric pedal-assist mountain bike.

b

Agreed n (%) includes both strongly agree and agree responses.

c

P values were derived from paired t tests of preride and postride values. Variables were coded using the following logic: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree,
3=agree, and 4=strongly agree. Significant P values (<.05) are italicized.
d

N=32.

e

N=31.

http://formative.jmir.org/2019/3/e13643/

XSL• FO
RenderX

JMIR Form Res 2019 | vol. 3 | iss. 3 | e13643 | p. 7
(page number not for citation purposes)

JMIR FORMATIVE RESEARCHHall et al

Table 7. Overall belief and perception surrounding the question: how have your beliefs and perceptions about eMTBsa changed after riding one?
(N=33).

aOverall belief and perception

Value, n (%)

I am less accepting of eMTBs after riding one

3 (9)My beliefs and perceptions have not changed at all

8 (24)I am more accepting of eMTBs after riding one

20 (61)

Other

2 (6)

eMTB: electric pedal-assist mountain bike.

Discussion
Principal Findings
This study sought to address 2 research questions: (1) What
proportion of exercise response is retained for an experienced
mountain biker when using an eMTB compared with aconventional mountain bike? and (2) What are the perceptions
and beliefs of experienced mountain bikers toward eMTB both
before and after riding an eMTB? Although significant
differences in heart rate were measured between conventional
mountain bike use and eMTB use, riding the study loop on bothtypes of mountain bikes placed the vast majority of participantsin the vigorous-intensity heart rate zone. Using heart rate as aproxy measure for cardiovascular exercise intensity and related
exercise response, eMTB use appears to be an excellent formof aerobic or cardiovascular exercise, even for experienced
mountain bikers who regularly engage in this fitness activity.
Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans established by the
CDC indicate that for substantial health benefits, adults should
engage in at least 150 min a week of moderate-intensity aerobic
physical activity or 75 min a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic
physical activity [3,16]. Average heart rate during eMTB use
was 93.6% of average heart rate during conventional mountainbike use. Riding both types of bikes on the study loop caused
the participants to exceed at least heart-rate levels formoderate-intensity fitness activities and placed the average heart
rate for a majority of participants in the vigorous-intensity zone[16]. Therefore, eMTB use in this study retained the bulk of theexercise response and exceeded established biometric thresholds
for cardiovascular fitness. These findings of eMTB use on
soft-surface trails are comparable to recent findings using
e-bikes on city bike paths in which it was estimated that 95.5%of the cardiovascular benefit of conventional bike use wasretained [18]. Although findings from the extant literature
indicate that e-bikes can generally satisfy requirements formoderate-intensity physical activity [7-11,13,19], this study isthe first to explore the exercise response of eMTB use on
soft-surface trails and the first to associate pedal-assist bikes
with vigorous exercise.
Although eMTB use provided an intense cardiovascular workoutin this study, average riding speed on the eMTB wasapproximately 4 mph (approximately 6.5 kph) faster than speedson the conventional mountain bike, resulting in less time needed
to complete the study loop. If a conventional mountain bike
was to be replaced by an eMTB as part of a cardiovascular
fitness program, then total ride time, not ride distance, would
need to remain constant. In this study, speed was presented as
http://formative.jmir.org/2019/3/e13643/

XSL• FO
RenderXan average across the entire study loop. It is possible that thehigher speed for eMTBs is a factor in forming attitudes andbeliefs both for and against their use. For example, higher eMTB
speeds in high traffic areas or up hills may be a perceived sourceof trail conflict and slower eMTB speeds on downhill trail
sections may result in trail congestion. These examples are only
speculative and could be tested in future research on the
adoption and uptake of eMTBs.
This study represents the first attempt to measure perceptions
and beliefs of experienced mountain bikers before and afterriding an eMTB. Relatively few significant attitudinal changes
occurred from preride to postride, likely because of a sampleof participants holding positive attitudes about eMTB at theonset. Only 18% of participants indicated they were opposed
to eMTB on the preride survey. As there are many in themountain biking community with strong negative opinions about
eMTBs [6], this is likely a reflection of sampling bias, whichis to say that those volunteering to participate in this study likely
had more positive views of eMTBs and were excited for theopportunity to ride one. There were, however, several significant
findings related to attitudes and beliefs along with several
nonsignificant findings worthy of discussion.
After riding an eMTB, attitudes related to the future of eMTB
use changed with fewer participants considering eMTBs to bea passing fad. This shift is consistent with industry trends andforecasts as eMTB sales climbed to US $77.1 million in 2017,
a 91% increase in US sales from the previous year and an 8-foldincrease since 2014 [20,21]. Market predictions are that eMTB
sales will represent approximately 30% of the mountain biking
market by 2020 [22].
Of particular note, participants in this study did not perceive
riding an eMTB to be a workout or taxing on theircardiovascular system. Although mean heart-rate data indicatedthe eMTB study loop resulted in an approximate 10 bpm
reduction when compared with the conventional mountain bike,all participants reached at least moderate levels of intensity andmost reached vigorous levels while riding the eMTB. Despite
this, participants’ perceived exertion while riding the eMTB
was low. This finding has potential implications for the utilityof eMTBs in helping all users, including the experienced
mountain bikers in this study as well as more sedentaryindividuals, to engage in regular physical activity and meet
physical activity guidelines. As key constructs of the HealthBelief Model (HBM), both perceived benefits and perceived
barriers are predictive of adherence to health recommendations
and behavior change [23]. Perceived benefits specifically refer
JMIR Form Res 2019 | vol. 3 | iss. 3 | e13643 | p. 8
(page number not for citation purposes)

JMIR FORMATIVE RESEARCH
to one’s opinion of the efficacy of an advised action to reduce
health risks [23]. Perceived barriers refer to one’s opinion of
the cost, whether psychological, physiological, or financial, of
engaging in a health-promoting behavior or practice [23]. The
low perceived exertion of riding an eMTB, together with the
cardiovascular benefit of continuous target heart rate zone
activity, make the total perceived benefits of eMTB riding highand the perceived barriers low. This has been observed as it
relates to physical activity in general, where perceptions ofexertion significantly impact activity levels [24,25]. Utilizing
pedal-assist technology to decrease the perceived exertion ofphysical activity may be a critical catalyst in helping individuals
become more physically active. Specifically pertaining to theuptake of e-bikes, lower perceived exertion has been reported
as impactful [26]. In relation to the HBM, this study examined
the physiological barriers and benefits of eMTB use, but otherbarriers may exist that could delay the uptake of this technology.
It is possible that on account of being an emerging technology
and with the addition of an electric motor, potential users ofeMTBs perceive the financial cost of purchasing an eMTB toohigh. Indeed, high performance eMTBs can be costly. The extent
to which these perceptions exist and how they might impact
potential riders was beyond the scope of this study but could
be studied in the future.
Participants were more accepting of eMTBs after riding one.
The adage “don’t knock it until you try it” appears applicablewith pedal-assist technology. A recent qualitative analysis ofeMTB threads in mountain biking forums concluded that
individuals could be divided into 2 groups when commenting
on eMTBs: those who had personal experience with an eMTB
and those who did not. The authors concluded that inexperience
with an eMTB appears central to the conflict surrounding eMTB
use and that many misconceptions about what an eMTB is andcan do are resolved by riding one [6]. This study found thatmost participants either became more accepting (61%) ofeMTBs after riding one or reported no change (24%) in theirlevel of acceptance.
Of interest in this study are the perceptions and beliefs that were
not significantly altered by the experience of riding an eMTB.

Hall et al
Overwhelming agreement existed at both pre- and postride datacollection related to eMTBs’ ability to help older and less-fit
riders find enjoyment in riding. Another stable perception isthat eMTBs have the potential to improve public healthoutcomes through the encouragement or promotion of physicalactivity. Future research should explore this potential by
including sedentary, less active, overweight or obese, and older
individuals as participants. Such investigations could target
behaviors, attitudes, and biometric indicators longitudinally.

Limitations
Findings from this study should be interpreted withconsideration of several limitations. This study was limited byits small sample. Although the sample size in this study is equal
to or greater than similar studies of pedal-assist bikes, it is not
sufficiently large to generalize or draw conclusions beyond thisspecific sample. In addition, this study used heart-rate data asa proxy measure for exercise response and cardiovascularexercise intensity. Future studies examining similar variables
would benefit from more sophisticated measures, such as
maximal oxygen uptake, metabolic equivalents, and watts.
Likewise, participants had only 1 trial on the eMTB and theirheart-rate response might have changed after an extended
observation period. Finally, the sampling procedure employed
to recruit experienced mountain bikers in this study yielded
participants who might have already been largely supportive of
eMTB use. A more random sample may have produced different
results, especially related to perceptions and beliefs before andafter riding an eMTB.

Conclusions
This is the first study to compare the exercise response of
conventional mountain bike and eMTB use on soft-surface trails
and the first to associate pedal-assist bikes withvigorous-intensity aerobic or cardiovascular fitness. Findings
indicate that riding an eMTB is moderate to vigorous physicalactivity, providing individuals with the opportunity to meet
physical activity guidelines. Findings related to perceptions andbeliefs before and after riding eMTBs were mixed yet support
the use of pedal-assist technology in promoting physical activity.

Acknowledgments
This study was funded entirely by an internal grant from the Department of Public Health at Brigham Young University.

Conflicts of Interest
None declared.

References
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

Vuori I. World Health Organization and physical activity. Prog Prev Med 2018;3(1):e0012. [doi:10.1097/pp9.0000000000000012]
World Health Organization. Diet and Physical Activity: A Public Health Priority URL: https://www.who.int/
dietphysicalactivity/background/en/ [accessed 2019-02-02]
Health.gov. 2019. Physical Activity Guidelines URL: https://health.gov/paguidelines/ [accessed 2019-02-02]
Clarke TC, Norris T, Schiller JS. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016. Early Release of Selected Estimates
Based on Data From the 2016 National Health Interview Survey URL: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/
earlyrelease201705.pdf
SauserWind. Mountain Bike (MTB) Industry Statistics URL: http://www.sauserwind.com/
mountain-bike-mtb-industry-statistics/ [accessed 2019-02-02]

http://formative.jmir.org/2019/3/e13643/

XSL• FO
RenderX

JMIR Form Res 2019 | vol. 3 | iss. 3 | e13643 | p. 9
(page number not for citation purposes)

JMIR FORMATIVE RESEARCH
6.
7.
8.
9.

10.
11.

12.
13.

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

19.

20.

21.
22.
23.
24.

25.
26.

Hall et al

Chaney RA, Hall PC, Crowder AR, Crookston BT, West JH. Mountain biker attitudes and perceptions of eMTBs(electric-mountain bikes). Sport Sci Health 2019 May 30 (forthcoming). [doi: 10.1007/s11332-019-00555-z]
Simons M, Van Es E, Hendriksen I. Electrically assisted cycling: a new mode for meeting physical activity guidelines?
Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009 Nov;41(11):2097-2102. [doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181a6aaa4] [Medline: 19812505]
Berntsen S, Malnes L, Langåker A, Bere E. Physical activity when riding an electric assisted bicycle. Int J Behav Nutr Phys
Act 2017 Dec 26;14(1):55 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0513-z] [Medline: 28446180]
Louis J, Brisswalter J, Morio C, Barla C, Temprado JJ. The electrically assisted bicycle: an alternative way to promote
physical activity. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2012 Nov;91(11):931-940. [doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e318269d9bb] [Medline:
23085705]
Peterman JE, Morris KL, Kram R, Byrnes WC. Pedelecs as a physically active transportation mode. Eur J Appl Physiol
2016 Aug;116(8):1565-1573. [doi: 10.1007/s00421-016-3408-9] [Medline: 27299435]
Sperlich B, Zinner C, Hébert-Losier K, Born DP, Holmberg HC. Biomechanical, cardiorespiratory, metabolic and perceived
responses to electrically assisted cycling. Eur J Appl Physiol 2012 Dec;112(12):4015-4025. [doi: 10.1007/s00421-012-2382-0][Medline: 22446956]
Gloekler S, Wenaweser P, Lanz J, Stoller M. How e-biking can boost cardiovascular health. Eur Heart J 2015 Aug
14;36(31):2033. [doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv154] [Medline: 25935878]
Gojanovic B, Welker J, Iglesias K, Daucourt C, Gremion G. Electric bicycles as a new active transportation modality topromote health. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011 Nov;43(11):2204-2210. [doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31821cbdc8] [Medline:
22005715]
MacArthur J, Dill J, Person M. Electric bikes in North America. Transp Res Rec 2014 Jan;2468(1):123-130. [doi:10.3141/2468-14]
International Mountain Bicycling Association. 2018. eMTB Education URL: https://www.imba.com/education/emtb[accessed 2019-01-11]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2018. Physical Activity Basics URL: https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/
basics/index.htm [accessed 2019-02-05]
American Heart Association. Know Your Target Heart Rates for Exercise, Losing Weight and Health URL: https://www.
heart.org/en/healthy-living/fitness/fitness-basics/target-heart-rates
Hoj TH, Bramwell JJ, Lister C, Grant E, Crookston BT, Hall C, et al. Increasing active transportation through e-bike use:pilot study comparing the health benefits, attitudes, and beliefs surrounding e-bikes and conventional bikes. JMIR Public
Health Surveill 2018 Nov 29;4(4):e10461 [FREE Full text] [doi: 10.2196/10461] [Medline: 30497998]
Höchsmann C, Meister S, Gehrig D, Gordon E, Li Y, Nussbaumer M, et al. Effect of e-bike versus bike commuting on
cardiorespiratory fitness in overweight adults: a 4-week randomized pilot study. Clin J Sport Med 2018 Dec;28(3):255-265.
[doi: 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000438] [Medline: 29095201]
NPD Group. 2018. The US Bike Specialty Market Pedals Ahead, with Mountain and Electric Bicycles Leading the Pack
URL: https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/2018/
the-us-bike-specialty-market-pedals-ahead-with-mountain-and-electric-bicycles-leading-the-pack/ [accessed 2019-01-22]
Outdoor Industry Association. 2018. 2018 Outdoor Participation Report URL: https://outdoorindustry.org/resource/
2018-outdoor-participation-report/ [accessed 2019-01-22]
Mordor Intelligence. Global E-mountain Bike Market URL: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/
e-mountain-bike-market [accessed 2019-02-05]
Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
Justine M, Azizan A, Hassan V, Salleh Z, Manaf H. Barriers to participation in physical activity and exercise among
middle-aged and elderly individuals. Singapore Med J 2013 Oct;54(10):581-586 [FREE Full text] [doi:10.11622/smedj.2013203] [Medline: 24154584]
Reichert FF, Barros AJ, Domingues MR, Hallal PC. The role of perceived personal barriers to engagement in leisure-time
physical activity. Am J Public Health 2007 Mar;97(3):515-519. [doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.070144] [Medline: 17267731]
Popovich N, Gordon E, Shao Z, Xing Y, Wang Y, Handy S. Experiences of electric bicycle users in the Sacramento,
California area. Travel Behav Soc 2014 May;1(2):37-44. [doi: 10.1016/j.tbs.2013.10.006]

Abbreviations
bpm: beats per minute
CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
e-bike: electric pedal-assist bikeeMTB: electric pedal-assist mountain bike
GPS: global positioning system
HBM: Health Belief Model
HHS: Health and Human Services
http://formative.jmir.org/2019/3/e13643/

XSL• FO
RenderX

JMIR Form Res 2019 | vol. 3 | iss. 3 | e13643 | p. 10(page number not for citation purposes)

JMIR FORMATIVE RESEARCHHall et al

MHR: maximum heart rate

Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 06.02.19; peer-reviewed by J Peterman, M Lommele; comments to author 29.04.19; revised version
received 22.05.19; accepted 14.06.19; published 13.08.19
Please cite as:Hall C, Hoj TH, Julian C, Wright G, Chaney RA, Crookston B, West J
Pedal-Assist Mountain Bikes: A Pilot Study Comparison of the Exercise Response, Perceptions, and Beliefs of Experienced MountainBikersJMIR Form Res 2019;3(3):e13643
URL: http://formative.jmir.org/2019/3/e13643/
doi: 10.2196/13643
PMID: 31411139©Cougar Hall, Taylor H Hoj, Clark Julian, Geoff Wright, Robert A Chaney, Benjamin Crookston, Joshua West. Originallypublished in JMIR Formative Research (http://formative.jmir.org), 13.08.2019. This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Formative Research, isproperly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://formative.jmir.org, as well as
this copyright and license information must be included.

http://formative.jmir.org/2019/3/e13643/

XSL• FO
RenderX

JMIR Form Res 2019 | vol. 3 | iss. 3 | e13643 | p. 11(page number not for citation purposes)