There was moderate evidence that  e-cycling provided physical activity of at least moderate intensity , which was lower than the intensity elicited during conventional cycling , but higher than that during walking .
There was also moderate evidence that  e-cycling can improve cardiorespiratory fitness in physically inactive individuals .
Evidence of the impact of e-cycling  on metabolic and psychological health outcomes was inconclusive .
Conclusion E-cycling can contribute to meeting physical activity recommendations and increasing physical fitness .
As such , e-bikes offer a potential alternative to conventional cycling .
Background Electrically assisted bicycles ( e-bikes ) have been highlighted as a method of active travel that could overcome some of the commonly reported barriers to cycle commuting .
The objective of this systematic review was to assess the health benefits associated with e-cycling .
Pedelecs as a physically active transportation mode
Introduction Pedelecs are bicycles that provide electric assistance only when a rider is pedaling and have become increasingly popular . Purpose Our purpose was to quantify usage patterns over 4 weeks of real-world commuting with a pedelec and to determine if pedelec use would improve cardiometabolic risk factors . Methods Twenty sedentary commuters visited the laboratory for baseline physiological measurements [ body composition , maximum oxygen consumption ( $ $ \dot{V}{\text{O } } _ { 2 } { \hbox{max } } $ $ V˙O2max ) , mean arterial blood pressure ( MAP ) , blood lipid profile , and 2-h oral glucose tolerance test ( OGTT ) ] . The following 4 weeks , participants were instructed to commute using a pedelec at least 3 days week−1 for 40 min day−1 while wearing a heart rate monitor and a GPS device . Metabolic equivalents ( METS ) were estimated from heart rate data . Following the intervention , we repeated the physiological measurements . Results Average total distance and time were 317.9 ± 113.8 km and 15.9 ± 3.4 h , respectively . Participants averaged 4.9 ± 1.2 METS when riding . Four weeks of pedelec commuting significantly improved 2-h post-OGTT glucose ( 5.53 ± 1.18–5.03 ± 0.91 mmol L−1 , p < 0.05 ) , $ $ \dot{V}{\text{O } } _ { 2 } { \hbox{max } } $ $ V˙O2max ( 2.21 ± 0.48–2.39 ± 0.52 L min−1 , p < 0.05 ) , and end of $ $ \dot{V}{\text{O } } _ { 2 } { \hbox{max } } $ $ V˙O2max test power output ( 165.1 ± 37.1–189.3 ± 38.2 W , p < 0.05 ) . There were trends for improvements in MAP ( 84.6 ± 10.5–83.2 ± 9.4 mmHg , p = 0.15 ) and fat mass ( 28.6 ± 11.3–28.2 ± 11.4 kg , p = 0.07 ) . Conclusion  Participants rode a pedelec in the real world at a self-selected moderate intensity , which helped them meet physical activity recommendations . Pedelec commuting also result ed in significant improvements in 2-h post-OGTT glucose , $ $ \dot{V}{\text{O } } _ { 2 } { \hbox{max } } $ $ V˙O2max , and power output . Pedelecs are an effective form of active transportation that can improve some cardiometabolic risk factors within only 4 weeks
There was moderate evidence that  e-cycling provided physical activity of at least moderate intensity , which was lower than the intensity elicited during conventional cycling , but higher than that during walking .
There was also moderate evidence that  e-cycling can improve cardiorespiratory fitness in physically inactive individuals .
Evidence of the impact of e-cycling  on metabolic and psychological health outcomes was inconclusive .
Conclusion E-cycling can contribute to meeting physical activity recommendations and increasing physical fitness .
As such , e-bikes offer a potential alternative to conventional cycling .
Background Electrically assisted bicycles ( e-bikes ) have been highlighted as a method of active travel that could overcome some of the commonly reported barriers to cycle commuting .
The objective of this systematic review was to assess the health benefits associated with e-cycling .